It is good to see that the report flags up exploration of collaborative arrangements between schools. I certainly hope that we do not follow the line that Billy Hutchinson took earlier as regards the creation of specialist schools. As a parent myself, I do not look forward to a future where I may be travelling huge distances between one school and another depending on my children's specialities. I am sure that others in the Chamber will agree with me. It is possible for us to have inclusive schools, providing a broad curriculum up to 13 or 14 years of age. After that there may be specialities according to subject, but I certainly would not want to see sports cut out of a curriculum for those children doing academic or vocational subjects. That is why this recommendation is important. It suggests collaborative arrangements between schools and other institutions to create the mixes that students favour.

The report also moots collaboration between further and higher education and schools, which is often missing at present. Last week we discussed the report from the Committee for Employment and Learning, which pointed out the need for universities and colleges in Northern Ireland to do more outreach work, particularly where they have an underrepresentation of students in higher and further education. That work needs to start if we are going to make changes. It is clear that, in the past, fewer students moved from secondary education into further and higher education, and this is an obvious opportunity to change that.

One of the advantages of the Committee's report was that it called on those giving evidence to carry out some work with young people. Again, Billy Hutchinson made the point that perhaps not enough evidence was taken from the Youth Service. I noted that the Belfast Education and Library Board did gather the views of the Youth Service. In a range of youth clubs, 1,131 young people in total were asked a range of questions about the current system. Eighty per cent answered that they would abolish the transfer test now; 8% said they would retain it; and 10% said they would retain it, but for older children. It was interesting to hear what a sample of over 1,000 young people had to say about the system. Indeed, the young citizens' jury was an interesting way of gathering evidence. We have clearly engaged young people in Northern Ireland and gathered their views. It was interesting to find some of this evidence in the generous appendices to the report.

In conclusion, it is wonderful for all of us to say that we were part of this debate. Clearly, major changes will now be made, but the most important thing is to include teachers in these changes. At present they seem to be exceptionally demoralised by the wait for change, particularly in the light of current community relations' difficulties. I am concerned that we are not in a position to provide the kind of safety and security that children have a right to, both outside and inside the school. That point is missing from this report.

We talk about education for the new economic society. We talk about it as regards ethos and values, but education in a peaceful and stable society is one of the most important parts of a values system. However, the report does not concentrate on that point to any great extent. It makes no recommendations on the future of pupils with emotional or behavioural difficulties, something that teachers see as one of the major issues they have to deal with.

I am glad that many of the schools set aside for children who were rejected by mainstream schools have been evaluated. If we are to continue to nurture children, particularly those with emotional or behavioural difficulties, we have to address that matter in any new education structure.

The issue of teacher training must be addressed if the school system and the curriculum are to be restructured. What will happen to that, given the segregated nature of teacher training in Northern Ireland?

More research must be done in Northern Ireland in order to achieve the correct social mix. More collaborative arrangements need to be put in place so that children can be educated together. Whilst we desperately need to start that now, we need to manage, plan and resource the change well.

I welcome the fact that the report has been brought to the Assembly for consideration. It is a weighty report, and it is the result of many hours of intensive Committee meetings, written submissions, focus group briefings, field visits and commissioned research.

I thank the key witnesses, including the main education bodies, teacher and employer organisations, and interested bodies, who added a new dimension of analysis to our deliberations and discussions and aided the Committee in its quest for clarity. Furthermore, I acknowledge the hard work of the Committee Clerks, the members and the Chairperson, Mr Danny Kennedy, who treated the review with the sensitivity and professionalism it deserves.

It has been said that it is more than 50 years since the education acts of 1944 and 1947 came into force. The fact that so many facets remain central to our present system is a testimony to the vision of the architects of that legislation. However, it is obvious that the ever- increasing demands of a fast-moving modern society are not being fully met by the bolt-on and ill-considered solutions that epitomised the era of direct rule.

The report's findings and recommendations are based on an honest attempt by parties holding different views to find a common focus through which they can address the challenges of the new century. The Committee did not want to replicate the review body on post-primary education's consultation exercise, but it believed that it had a responsibility to give the fundamental issues the due time and consideration they deserve.

Many of the report's conclusions and recommendations are worthy of further and detailed consideration. The recommendations are not intended to be a blueprint for the future structure of our education system. However, they include several key principles that must underpin any educational developments in Northern Ireland.

These key principles and recommendations sit very comfortably with the Ulster Unionist Party's response to the review on post-primary education entitled 'Excellence, Diversity and Choice', which was published early in the year. The document contained the main educational concerns and aspirations of the community.

I draw Members' attention to the Committee report's findings in three major areas. First, whether one likes it or not, the much maligned transfer procedure has been central to the current dissatisfaction. The Committee's recommendation to the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) that it should undertake improvements in a limited timescale is to be welcomed as an interim response. We have heard about the difficulties with timetables and the definition between current grades. Those areas need to be dealt with immediately.

In the longer term, which the Committee has defined as in the next three years - it has wisely designed a timescale - there should be a transfer profile incorporating current pupil performance, pupil development over a period of time, parental wishes and, despite Billy Hutchinson's recommendations, professional teacher guidance. All these must be fully discussed and tried. This approach appears to offer a more equitable and acceptable way forward than anything that we have had heretofore.

Secondly, the curriculum needs to change as part of any review of the post-primary education system. The recommendation of a core curriculum offered to all pupils up to the age of 14 has much to commend it as it would allow flexibility and enable pupils to sample a range of subjects before making choices which would reflect academic, technical and vocational strands. The rigid current "in school" approach should be replaced by a collaborative arrangement with other institutions to better advise potential choices by pupils. The Ulster Unionist Party looks forward to further debates centred upon that.

Thirdly, the principles that form the basis for the future education system must focus on the requirements of that system. Those referred to in paragraphs 6.1.1 to 6.1.9 of the report deserve careful consideration and should form the basis for discussion. My party regards several factors as critical to achieving educational excellence, and perhaps more than anything else the quality and commitment of our teaching staff are critical to that. We are fortunate to have a wealth of first-class teachers, and we are proud, as the entire House should be, of what has been achieved in the majority of schools. Yet we are not complacent; there is a clear need for improvement. Change must enable young people to maximise their potential and to ensure that we must retain what is best in the current system and allow no dilution of our renowned academic results.

Apart from the Army, education is the only organisation that conscripts its participants. This report signals a move away from conscription and curricular prescription toward choice - individual choice, parental choice, a choice of routes, the choice to switch between routes, to mix and match to reflect an individual's interests, skills and personal objectives. That alone would release much untapped educational energy.

Disaffected post-primary pupils play a large part in the tribulations of many secondary schools and feed the perceptions that make that type of education unattractive to certain echelons in society. They will be challenged as never before to become active participants in a meaningful educational experience. That segment of the school population largely contributes to our having only half the level of qualification levels of our major European competitors. It represents a sizeable slice of that 25% of the underperforming tail that we hear so much about.

My party feels that paragraphs 6.3.1 to 6.3.11 offer society an opportunity to address these problems in a structured way that will replace the "Band-Aid" approach that currently seeks to address underachievement and disaffection. I want to touch briefly on this. The nature and content of the curriculum are key. The core curriculum on offer up to 14 years of age should include English, maths, sciences, language, personal development, physical education, information and communications technology and the flexibility to meet individual needs and circumstances. Perhaps this is how to meet the creativity concerns of Billy Hutchinson and the other areas that were referred to by Monica McWilliams. There is no intention to exclude any of those aspects of education. It would not be a full education if they were excluded.

An opportunity to sample a range of subjects before deciding on choices is crucial to this change.

How many of us know of glaring examples of people locked into courses and systems that allow no flexibility and that cause them to drop out and fail to maximise their potential?

A relevant and broad skills-based curriculum should be encouraged as part of the Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment's (CCEA) ongoing review. That must stretch and challenge pupils to maximise their potential. We do not want the lowest common denominator of a curriculum: it must stretch pupils right across the board.

A formal mechanism by which business and industry can inform curriculum developers and managers about changing skill requirements is long overdue. However, the fact that the Committee has referred to it is a welcome innovation that must be pursued quickly. Many Members have mentioned collaboration with other institutions. An opportunity now exists to develop natural integration among nearby institutions that might previously have interacted only with other establishments in their specific sector of education. That would have the potential to offer even wider curricular choices at certain localities and might be especially attractive in some rural settings. That would present a further opportunity to develop the cross-community contact that occurs naturally in further and higher education institutions.

We are acutely aware of the considerable implications for teacher training and in-service training provision, which include staffing, funding and course content. Those must be addressed as early as possible if the new programmes of study are to be in place ahead of any proposed changes. Many of the disasters of previous educational changes can be put down to the fact that they were ill-considered and ill-planned; we were always playing catch-up with teacher training, resources and persuading people that a project was worthy.

Education, as has been said, is a partnership of pupils, parents and teachers, and any change must enlist the active support of all three groups. The period after the Committee's report and the findings of the Burns review, which is imminent, should be used to explain and explore the recommendations contained in both. I hope that, on the basis of those recommendations, we can move away from the emotional responses of recent times and enter an era informed by reasoned debate that will lead to rational solutions.

Finally, in supporting the report, my party is conscious that it will not embark on an exercise in social engineering. Rather, it will enter wholeheartedly into a genuine attempt to ensure equality of access, provision and opportunity to maximise the skills and talents of individuals, not as members of any class or tribe, but for the benefit of individuals and society at large.

My party has consistently opposed the present arrangements on the grounds that there have been far too many injustices and inequalities in the system. I welcome the report because it will help to promote debate, not so much on the injustices of the system, of which everyone is aware, but about how we change that system. It is clear that we need to replace the present system with a better one. We have very high standards in many schools, which nobody can overlook. Rather than dismantle the present system, a sound education system for the future should be based on an evolving version of it. That would be in the best interests of all children and all sectors.

One of the report's recommendation is that the current tests should cease as soon as possible. Members may be aware that questions are being asked about when the tests will come to an end. Many people want to know what circumstances will prevail at the time of transfer for children who are now eight, nine and ten years old.

There have been suggestions that the CCEA should introduce some improvements while we are in a period of change. Nobody would disagree with that. However, I want to sound a note of caution. In the past, so-called improvements were introduced which many educationalists would argue, served only to make the operation of the system worse than it had been.

One suggestion that enjoys some currency at the moment is that the tests should be moved back into the second term of the school year; they currently take place around eight weeks into the first term. To move the tests further into the school year would prolong the agony for children, teachers and parents. I welcome suggestions to improve the tests, but we should hear about them before they are introduced. They should be debated, and the teaching profession should be consulted in detail.

The report contains several recommendations on changing the system. Those recommendations will help to promote a challenging debate on why changes are needed, and on what kind of system is needed to prepare young people for the future and for earning a living in the twenty-first century. It is important that education prepares young people to contribute to the local economy and enables them to compete in the global economy.

The report refers to the fact that, under the present arrangements, too many children's curriculum experiences are limited. That is especially true for those from socially-deprived backgrounds. As I said at the outset, high standards across the education spectrum are important. However, we must look at what we are preparing children for. In a modern society, everyone must have ample opportunity to acquire a range of skills, be they basic skills, key skills, communication skills, literacy and numeracy skills, or information and communication technology skills. In future, employees will need to be adaptable.

Many challenges lie ahead, but few are greater than devising a system in which academic education, although remaining important, is accorded equal status with vocational education. The report states that they should be accorded parity of esteem.

The report will assist the debate and discussion of the issues. I have mentioned some of the challenges, but a stark fact should be kept in mind as we look at the background against which we will be working. There are 133,000 students in post-primary education today. In 25 years, that number will be reduced to 110,000. The scenario that we face will also test our imagination. To reiterate, if we adopt a method based on retaining all that is best and adapting what currently exists, rather than dismantling it, we shall be able to create a more useful and successful system that will include, where demand for it exists, local solutions.

Local solutions operate in some parts of Northern Ireland; for example, in all-ability schools. I do not make claims about the merits of any of those - some seem to work well, and others need improvement. However, in our vision of the way forward, issues on which there is strong agreement between the governors, teachers and parents of every school in an area should not be ignored.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am the third non-member of the Committee for Education to speak. I speak on behalf of Mr McElduff - that is not an easy task, but I will do my best. He sent a letter of apology to the Chairperson to explain why he could not be present. Mr McElduff believes in local politics, therefore he is working in his locality this morning. I notice, however, that other Members with other functions are not here either.

Billy Hutchinson asked Mr Kennedy to explain "creativity". Some years ago, when I asked a similar question, I was told that creativity was a bit like sex appeal - if you had it you did not have to ask about it. After that, I stopped asking about it.

People think that I have both.

Perhaps he does.

Many years ago, when Don Revie managed Leeds United, football was like geometry. It was very unattractive, because it was played within the tight parameters of parallelograms and triangles. The 11-plus and the education system have confined children and teachers to such narrow parameters as part of a thought-out process. That has denied them the opportunity to be creative, in the same way as footballers were restricted.

Was it not successful?

It was not successful. Under the present education system, children are not allowed to develop their talents.

I meet many primary and secondary school teachers. At the moment, I have never met so many who are seeking early retirement. They want out because it is horrendous; it is difficult for them to express themselves in the system. Young, talented and able teachers, at primary and secondary level, are attempting to leave that system.

Fairness, social inclusivity, pluralism, equality and justice should underline our education system. Education is at the very foundation of our society. Cognisance should be taken from the fact that an education system is an integral part of our society and of the way that society develops.

I do not wish to make a political point, but in his book, 'The Murder Machine', Padraig Pearse described the education system as it existed throughout the island of Ireland before partition. It seems that children were put on a conveyor belt at one end and came out at the other stereotyped, stamped and left with no real creativity or personality, apart from the ability to get a job in the Civil Service or as a teacher. That was because the education system was geared to particular jobs and to the tailoring of children and people for those jobs. There was no notion that the purpose of education was not only to prepare children and adults for work, but to prepare them for life and for their role in society. That getting away from the personal notion of an educational system has contributed to the breakdown of the fabric of society.

The 11-plus has created a two-tier education system. Mr McHugh and other Members have said that the creation of all-ability schools would provide the best avenue for equal access and equal opportunity. The Assembly has not looked at the fundamentals of education. However, it must examine education, root and branch, to see where it has gone wrong. It has gone wrong by failing to prepare children to become citizens of society.

Under the heading "Making a Difference" in the draft Programme for Government,

is stated as an aim of the Executive. The draft Programme for Government asserts that the Executive are committed to policies that actively promote equality of opportunity and adhere to international standards of human rights. Those who advocate the retention of selection see its survival and its singularity as a positive feature of education in the North of Ireland. The implication is that there is some form of excellence or wisdom peculiar and particular to our system that is worth preserving. However, its demise or its non-existence elsewhere indicates the enlightenment of those jurisdictions in which non- selective systems have worked.

I was surprised at Mr Gallagher's remarks. He seemed to be singing from a different hymn sheet to that of Ms Lewsley and the rest of his party. He appeared to be formulating the adaptation, rather than the total elimination, of the 11-plus system. Mr Gallagher appears to be at odds with the SDLP on that issue.

All the appropriate points have already been made. An education system should provide all children with equal opportunities to develop at their own pace and to avail themselves of the greatest possible breadth of curriculum choices. It should promote equality of teaching and learning in all schools. In particular, pupils of different ages, academic abilities and social backgrounds would benefit from sharing the same learning environment, as would their teachers.

The education system should recognise the full diversity of children's needs and talents. Every child has a special need, which the present system ignores. Every school must endeavour to provide that space in which a child's differing and changing needs can be met. As parents will tell you, the education system has failed to do that. It must be inclusive of all partners: parents, teachers, students, local communities, and the whole of society.

Sometimes politicians do not look much beyond the next election. That is particularly true when tackling the 11-plus and other issues that affect the lives of constituents. Politicians try to be all things to all men - or women - without looking beyond that election and having some vision about the society that they are trying to create. Politicians must give the lead, particularly in such fundamental areas as health and, particularly, education. Politicians should give the lead to ensure that we provide a system of education that is fair and that provides social inclusivity, pluralism, equality and justice.

I support the motion.

Mr Kennedy referred to the debate as being one of the most important that the Assembly has so far undertaken. He is correct. With that in mind, I wish to register a great deal of disappointment that once again the DUP Members have absented themselves. They are doing the children of Northern Ireland no favours by engaging in the type of political stunt that we witnessed this morning.

One of the main reasons that I so readily endorse the report is that it so closely mirrors my party's submission to the Burns review of post-primary education. The key elements of my party's submission - excellence, diversity and choice - underpin the report. Both papers reflect the need to preserve all that is good in our current system, including those elements that have, across the years, resulted in Northern Ireland producing a consistently higher success rate than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That fact is borne out on page 10 of the report, in which reference is made to the increased levels of participation in higher education by young people from traditional working-class backgrounds in comparison to their counterparts in England, Scotland and Wales.

There is an equal need to address those areas in which improvement may be made. To strive for an educational system that provides excellence for all is remarkable, as is the inclusion of sections that deal with parity of esteem, parental choice coupled with professional guidance from teachers, flexibility in the curriculum, and the requirement for children to be able to transfer more easily between different sectors in the post-primary system. All those essentials of my party's submission are addressed and reflected throughout the Committee for Education's recommendations, and I welcome that.

Coming in advance of the Burns report, it is right and fitting that the Assembly's Committee for Education should not be taking a hard or fast stand on the issues that surround the transfer procedure. Instead, it recommends the adoption of a series of principles and required outcomes against which the Burns report can be judged and appraised. In particular, I am pleased to note that the Committee, although suggesting its possible combination with other assessment methods, is not ruling out the idea of continuing to use some method of final standardised central testing. That is important.

Many in the House advocate continuous assessment. As a teacher, I can tell you that those results are by no means foolproof, any more than is the result of a transfer test. The results of continuous assessment can be backed up by the results of a final standardised test. Similarly, continuous assessment can be used as a method to validate the result of the standardised test. One can therefore act as a back up to the other. If that system were adopted, it would be a more reliable indicator than reliance on just the one method.

There are other reasons why I hold those views. However, to be honest, it would take about an hour and a half to explain them. Not even your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker, never mind that of the other Members, would stretch that far. Whatever outcome is adopted to decide the issue of transfer into post-primary education, I welcome the recommendation that it be phased in over time, and that it be properly trialled and tested. I taught for 25 years, and in that time I experienced attempts at educational reform under direct rule.

The method used was to create the reforms before starting to train the teachers to carry them out. That often resulted in little more than a shambles; after training, teachers would often attempt to implement new methods, only to have their instructions altered because they had proved ineffective. As a result of that, teachers often had to make massive alterations, at an advanced stage of a course, which caused considerable disruption not only to themselves, but, more importantly, to the education of their pupils.

There is a widespread acceptance that the present transfer arrangements are unsatisfactory and in need of alteration. The Assembly must get it right, so the changes, which will come, will work in practice when they are implemented. Trials, along with a phased and considered plan of implementation, will help to achieve that.

My party and I wish to see a transfer procedure in Northern Ireland that opens up opportunities, rather than closes them down. Such systems exist in other countries, and there is no reason why they cannot exist in Northern Ireland. The Committee for Education's report brings that possibility closer, and I urge Members to support it.

I commend the report to the Assembly. I missed some of the debate, because, I must confess, I am one of the Members who metaphorically "jukes behind the bicycle sheds" from time to time. However, I understood the drift of the debate and will try not to repeat points already made.

We were in fraught and emotional circumstances 18 months ago. Many Members will have attended public meetings at which one section of parents and teachers was demanding that the 11-plus go. There were raw, emotional debates about the effect of the transfer test system on young children. That forthright campaign led to another and equally forthright crusade that was spurred on by a fear on the part of many educators and boards of governors that we would rush to destroy the best of education in Northern Ireland or that we would act rashly.

The report demonstrates that, in that emotion-charged debate, we have been able to marshall rational arguments by and on behalf of parents, teachers, pupils, boards of governors, those transferring and others to produce a coherent and rational set of recommendations.

The three reviews that are currently under way - the formula-funding review, the curriculum review and the review of post-primary education - constitute the most fundamental analysis of the education system in Northern Ireland. For the first time in over 50 years the selection procedure has been examined. It is the first time that anyone in Northern Ireland has been properly consulted about the impact of the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989. When Brian Mawhinney introduced the Education Reform Act 1988, followed by the 1989 Order, every educational union, major church, political party and parents' group in Northern Ireland opposed it. We are now giving those people their first say on how education should be run and administered here.

At one point, many believed that the debate would deteriorate into a situation of grammar schools versus secondary schools, church versus state, one sector versus another, and, in many cases, one parent against another.

If we have learnt no other lesson, we have learnt that we can take on the most contentious issues, that we can provide a consultation exercise that is broadly engaged by the entire community and that the Assembly is a forum that can generate that type of political development.

I would like to highlight one or two of the report's recommendations. First, the education system must

The system must be

That says clearly that any new system must be based entirely on the needs of the individual child, and, as far as is possible, it must be customised for the child. That important statement must be highlighted.

Secondly, recommendation 6.1.2 says that

One of the biggest grievances of the last 20 or 30 years is that the educators - those delivering the service to our children - have been the last people to be consulted, trained, given resources and tooled up for the job. With this report, we are committing ourselves to a process that is inclusive and that goes at a pace that allows everyone to keep up.

The third great fear that was generated at the beginning of this debate was that there was some sort of tacit conspiracy to do away with grammar schools or to diminish the high standards of education that have been achieved in Northern Ireland. The report clearly states that those standards must be maintained, while vigorous action must be taken to tackle the perceived tail of underachievement. It could not be more explicit. We want to improve what exists, not destroy it. We want to expand accessibility to the best education to all children and not, in any sense, inhibit the high achievers in our society.

In case there is any misunderstanding - Mr John Kelly seems to have left the room, but I am sure his Colleague will pass this on - Members should read my lips: the 11-plus must go. That is, has been and will remain the SDLP's policy, and it is the policy of most of the parties in the Assembly. However, that is the easy bit. The hard bit is contained in the report - and, presumably, it will be in the report of the Burns review, which will be published this week - which is how to create a better system.

The report is very clear. Paragraph 6.2.2 says that

The 11-plus must go; it is as simple as that.

I commend to the Assembly one other item from the report that has not been discussed in any detail. A transfer profile should be created for each child so that every aspect of the child's potential can be measured over a sustained period, with input coming not only from tests but also from continuous assessment. Assessment should not be carried out through a two-hour snapshot of how the child performs. It should take into account how a child develops and performs over a long time. Input should be given by teachers, school administrators and parents. That would be an enormous, radical stride forward for our education system.

Unfortunately the Minister is not present, but we recognise that, some time ago, he committed himself to doing away with the current selection procedure, and we welcome that. By presenting this report, we are providing him with the political climate in which he can say that there is widespread support for fundamental reform. I ask him to get on with it as quickly as possible.

I want to make a brief contribution to this important debate. As a former teacher, I have a great deal of interest in the subject. The Education (Northern Ireland) Act 1947 was an important Act of its time and provided the opportunity for many people, particularly from working-class backgrounds, to avail of the benefits of a grammar-school education and then, more importantly, to move on to tertiary education, particularly university. That was important. There is no doubt that the 1947 Act created a new society in Northern Ireland. Change began in this society in the 1960s and the 1970s. That change, and particularly the political change, would not have come about had it not been for the 1947 Act.

The Act was legislation of its time, but things have moved forward. Working for a number of years in a secondary school, I saw the divisiveness of a bipartite education system. Many of my pupils became very successful in their careers, whether they attended university or teacher training college or whether they moved into industry or business.

Things have changed. It is a great shame that the DUP had to pull off its stunt today. Education is one of the most important issues and responsibilities that the Assembly deals with. It shows that devolution can bring about change. That can be seen across the board in many of the Assembly's areas of responsibility - we can bring about change.

Most of us agree that selection at age 11 is wrong. I welcome the fact that the report does not deal with educational structures but with principles. That is important. I congratulate the Committee for focusing on the principles. Like most Members, I am looking forward to the publication of Gerry Burns's report on Wednesday. This debate is a worthwhile preamble to that.

Changes in post-primary education can provide more opportunities to develop integrated education in Northern Ireland. There are various ways to do that. I have made no secret that I strongly believe in the development of a Dickson-type plan for education where the first three years are all-ability. I hope that pupils from across the communities in Northern Ireland will be educated together. That is an important opportunity that is provided by the changes.

The report refers to parental choice. Parental choice is an absolute fallacy - it does not exist. Over the years many of my constituents have wanted to send their children to schools that were perceived as integrated in nature, if not in name.

They were deprived of that opportunity because the Department insisted that their children went either to a Catholic grammar school or to one of the state, or private, grammar schools closest to where they lived.

Change will come whether we like it or not. However, it is important that we get it right, and that is why the principle of phasing-in, put forward by the Committee, is important. Equally important is the need to make available the resources required to bring about the necessary change. My favoured option will cost money. As someone who believes strongly in the development of educational facilities in Northern Ireland I strongly believe that the Assembly should have tax-varying and tax-raising powers in line with those of the Scottish Parliament. Unless we provide such a facility I see major problems in accruing the funding necessary to bring about the change.

I welcome the report and congratulate the Chairperson, the Committee and the Clerk in producing it at a very important time. I look forward to its implementation and the change that all of us want to see.

I rise as the mother of a child who will do the 11-plus exam in three weeks time. I am in the thick of this subject, and I understand what it is all about as I have spent several months doing practice tests for the 11-plus. I will give Members some examples of the questions being asked. First, how many thousands are there in two million? Secondly, does a snake have a backbone?

Does the Women's Coalition have a backbone?

I avoided referring to anyone in the House when I asked that question.

It is very important that people appreciate what children have to go through in the 11-plus. One wonderful example was the question "This watch has no batteries: what do you do to make it go?" My son said "Put in some batteries". That was the wrong answer. Simple logic was not correct. The answer was "Wind it up".

Many Members will appreciate the question in which my son had to write the opposite of a word by using a prefix such as "im-", "ir-", "dis-" or "anti-". One of the words given was "agreement". My son wrote "anti- agreement", and he was marked wrong. His teacher said "You mustn't bring politics into this class. It is disagreement, not anti-agreement". Such an argument is illogical? It is unfair to put kids - who try their best - through a system that confines them to a narrow "Yes", "No", or "I don't know" and does not allow for creativity.

Therefore I commend paragraph 6.2.2 of the report, which states that

It is a pity that it did not happen today, thus preventing my son from having to go through that trauma in three weeks' time. It is to be hoped that it will happen as soon as possible to prevent other children having to go through that sort of test and trauma.

I am sorry that the Committee did not go further. The constraints of trying to achieve cross-community support meant that there was a certain inability to take a stance on the options, in one direction or another, but I am glad that we got this far. I am pleased that foreign languages are listed as playing an important part in the early years of the curriculum. It is essential that children learn a second or third language at an early stage.

Integrated education is not mentioned enough in the report. The Women's Coalition believes wholeheartedly that education must play a part in healing the divisions in our community. It believes that a more just, appropriate and inclusive education system must be devised. I am sorry that the report does not go into that in more detail. The only way to promote a peaceful community is for children to experience the other side as human beings capable of friendships and understanding. It can be achieved only by the integration of children of all abilities and religions and, indeed, those who have other values or no religion. The education system must incorporate and express respect for all children and nourish them equally. The need for teacher training in integrated education, which is sadly lacking in this society, should also be included. Integration must become a matter of public policy.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>