SUBGROUP TO CONSIDER THE SCHOOLS ADMISSION POLICY
Friday 8 December 2006
Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings:
The Chairman, Mr Jim Wells
Mr Dominic Bradley
Mr Jeffrey Donaldson
Mr Barry McElduff
Mr David McNarry
Ms Caitríona Ruane
Witnesses:
Mr Leslie AsheDr Robson Davison } Department of Education
Mr John Leonard
Mr David Woods
The subgroup met at 10.20 am.
The Chairman (Mr Wells): Good morning and welcome to the first meeting of the Subgroup to Consider the Schools Admission Policy.
As is the normal practice, I will call out the name of each Member as they ask their first question, rather than waste time with introductions. I will begin by asking the representatives of the Department of Education to commence with opening remarks. Then I will allow Members to ask questions. School admissions policy is an issue on which everyone has strong views, and I am keen to hear as many views as possible.
Dr Robson Davison (Department of Education): The Department has put together some short papers covering topics such as previous developments, the current position, and the main elements involved in the admissions process. Do you want us to begin by summarising the papers, or would you rather we started straight into the discussion? Have Members received their copies of the papers?
The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. Please begin.
Dr Davison: I will be brief. The papers explain how policy has developed, the present position and the main elements of the process in which we are engaged. We are here to clarify anything that we can for Members in relation to the various processes. We are bound by the Secretary of State’s letter to the Assembly setting out the parameters within which we can operate. We are here to explain things as best we can for Members, but we are unable to supply personal or speculative views.
The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do any other members of the Department’s deputation have anything to say at this stage? No?
Members, this is your opportunity to ask questions. You are all aware of the reference to this issue in the St Andrews Agreement. My understanding is that the form of selection represented by the 11-plus is over, although other forms of selection are not precluded.
Dr Davison: From the Department’s perspective, the last transfer test will take place in 2008. However, the St Andrews Agreement refers the decision on selection by ability or otherwise to the Assembly. The Assembly’s decision, endorsed by the Executive, would then become policy. Present policy may therefore change.
Mr D Bradley: The Independent Strategic Review of Education, carried out by Professor Sir George Bain, proposed an area-based approach to future school planning. Might that approach be streamlined to match enlarged catchment areas for schools, so that transport planning, building development and other services might be co-ordinated? There would be obvious advantages, including financial savings.
Dr Davison: You will appreciate that the Department has just received the Bain Report. We are still studying its implications — not only as regards the issues we are discussing today, but for the breadth of ground that the report covers. My only comment is that in our paper on admissions, catchment areas are one possibility that could be incorporated. Like other elements of policy, catchment areas might be aligned to area-based infrastructure planning. That would be for a future Minister and a future Assembly to determine. Certainly, catchment areas are one option on the admissions side.
Mr D Bradley: Is that a possibility?
Dr Davison: Catchment is a current consideration, but it would be for the Assembly and a future Minister to determine what is built around it.
Mr Leslie Ashe (Department of Education): Catchment is just one of a number of elements in the admissions criteria — it is important to remember that.
Mr D Bradley: If there is an opportunity for alignment between what Bain is suggesting and future admissions criteria, that may prove to be useful.
Dr Davison: That is at one end of the spectrum. It has the benefits of a central planning view of the world. However, there are downsides as well.
Mr D Bradley: What are the disadvantages?
Dr Davison: Parental choice would be involved. The catchment areas drawn up might not match everyone’s choice.
Mr D Bradley: People will not be pleased anyway.
Dr Davison: You cannot win in a lot of cases.
Mr D Bradley: I said that an enlarged catchment area might overcome some of the problems that people have referred to in the past as the postcode lottery.
Mr David Woods (Department of Education): That is one point, certainly. One of the papers that we have submitted touches on the Department’s current thinking on how certain admissions criteria might be defined.
The Department assumed that it would leave the definition of a catchment area to the schools themselves — recognising the other side of the coin, that one size may not fit all. We are conscious that the catchment areas of schools differ quite markedly depending on whether one is in an urban or rural area. We had been allowing flexibility around that. Other jurisdictions have defined catchment areas separately for their own reasons, and there are other ways of coming to a decision.
The Chairman (Mr Wells): I wish to outline the way forward for the rest of the meeting. We have extra time, as the opening remarks were quite brief. I wish to invite Mr Jeffrey Donaldson to ask a series of questions, then Mr David McNarry, then Ms Caitríona Ruane and then Mr Barry McElduff. That saves introducing each individual later.
Mr Donaldson: I want to return to Mr Bradley’s point about catchment. Research Services have provided us with a paper on the new admissions arrangements for post-primary education. It contains the following question:
"Will the geographical criteria not result in selection by post-code?"
The answer given is:
"One of the underlying principles of the new arrangements is that schools normally service their local community."
Forgive me, Mr Chairman, for being parochial: I wish to use the city of Lisburn as an example. Within a two-mile radius of the urban core there are six post-primary schools. St Patrick’s is a maintained school, and there are five state-controlled or independent grammar schools. Some of them — for example, the two grammar schools, Friends School and Wallace High School — sit almost side by side. How do those schools define the local community that they service? If someone lives in Moira, Hillsborough or Annahilt, which school’s local community does that person fall into?
10.30 am
Dr Davison: You have illustrated one of the problems with catchment areas, which is the simple issue of definition. Lisburn is an example. However, one could name several places where there is the same problem: it might be extremely difficult to define a catchment area. However, that is not to say that it is impossible. It would be a difficult call in a town that has five or six schools.
Mr Woods: Although we have not attempted to define what a catchment area is, it is on the list of admissions criteria that a school could decide to use. Some schools have a clearly defined catchment area, such as the local parish. However, to return to the wider issue, which is that schools normally serve their local community, there are costs involved in pupils travelling long distances to schools. There is some inconvenience to families as well as costs to the education budget. The aspiration is that a school that is well regarded in its community will serve its community without the need for pupils to travel in other directions. However, we have not sought to constrain or confine people in any way.
Mr Donaldson: Therefore, the idea of a catchment area or of serving a local community is, at the moment, a broad concept that has not been pinned down. With regard to a particular local community, what is going to happen to the Dickson plan in Craigavon under those proposals? As you know, transfer in Craigavon takes place at age 14 — albeit there is transfer at age 11, but selection takes place at age 14. Will the Dickson plan continue under the new system, and if it does, what does that say about the capacity to develop local arrangements in, for example, Lisburn, where there are several schools in close proximity to one another?
You mentioned that there is not a "one size fits all" approach. However, I must say that as a parent and a public representative, nothing that I have read from the Department has made clear how it is going to handle that in practice. It was made clear in the Burns Report, which went into some detail about local collegiates, and so forth. However, there has not been any clarity since. I am not sure whether there has been a move away from that. Where does the Dickson plan lie under those arrangements, and what is there to stop other areas adopting the Dickson plan under that system?
Mr Woods: To date, nothing in the Government’s thinking has had any impact on the structure of schools or on how schools are organised in any locality. The key difference is in the Government’s current stance to introduce a non-selective system by which pupils in Craigavon, for example, could still go to junior high schools up to the age of 14 and transfer to other schools thereafter, but not on the basis of academic selection. Therefore, the structures would stay, but the basis of transfer beyond that would not include academic selection.
Mr Donaldson: Does that not render the whole point of the Dickson plan irrelevant? The idea was that there would be transfer at age 14 on the basis of a form of selection which would allow children to transfer according to their aptitude, vocational interests, and so on. What is the point in maintaining a system that transfers children at the age of 14, when it is not based on any academic criteria?
What would be the role of Lurgan College as against Killicomaine Junior High School, Clounagh Junior High School or Portadown College, for example? What will be their role in the future? They are clearly defined at present, but what will Portadown College become when this new system is in place? Will it become an all-ability comprehensive?
Mr Ashe: There is nothing to prevent those schools from retaining their existing status, position and role among the schools in the area. Like transfer now at the age of 14, a parent would have to examine a child’s attributes and consider what the school can offer before deciding whether Portadown College or some other school is appropriate for the child’s needs at that particular age. The system of transfer at the age of 14 would be identical to the system at the age of 11.
Mr Donaldson: If I were a parent living in Moira, and I had a choice between the schools in Lisburn and the schools in Lurgan, when would I take that decision? Would it be when my child is aged 11 or 14?
Mr Ashe: It could be at both ages.
Mr Donaldson: Is it possible to have two transfers?
Mr Ashe: At the moment, two transfers are possible under the Dickson plan.
Mr Donaldson: The Department’s submission notes the complexity of the current admissions criteria; your approach in the new system is to simplify those criteria. However, I have read your detailed documentation and, as a parent, am left very confused about how this system will work. That is not a cheap point; it is a genuine concern as someone who deals with parents appealing decisions about what school their child will get into and so on — as I am sure all my colleagues do every summer. I know how confusing all that form-filling can be. I appreciate that the current system is far from simple, but I feel that issues have not been simplified for parents. There is so much uncertainty in much of what you have said this morning that I am still left very confused.
Nevertheless, I want to turn now to the issue of the pupil profile. The Department is at pains to make clear that the pupil profile is not a means of selection. The Department is clear in saying that the objective of the pupil profile is to inform parents. I accept that parents need information to make informed decisions about their child’s education. The Department has made provision whereby, if it is the parents’ wish, the school can see the pupil profile, but not for the purposes of selection. Why is the Department opposed to the pupil profile being used as a basis for selection?
Mr Woods: It is not so much that we are against it, but that the pupil profile is not designed for that purpose. It is an information document — a standardised annual report. All schools give annual reports to parents at the end of the school year.
Mr McNarry: Is that the pupil profiling that you are pushing, or is it profiling per se?
Mr Woods: It is the pupil profile that has been under development. We are talking about the position to date.
The Chairman (Mr Wells): Ms Ruane, I think that you may be concerned about the way in which the subgroup is being conducted?
Ms Ruane: Yes, I think that we should stick to your earlier arrangement.
The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am allowing Mr Donaldson to go down a line of questioning, but I will be equally generous with other members so that they can tease out their own issues.
Mr Woods: The current concept of the pupil profile is a standardised annual report that gives parents consistent information about how children are progressing at school. At the moment, if parents have children attending different schools, the format of their reports will differ from school to school. The pupil profile will be more consistent in order to benefit parents. A profile will indicate a child’s progress in the core skills areas — communication, use of maths, information and communication technology — as well as in the other broad curriculum areas.
Its purpose is to provide information. As currently conceived, it does not place pupils in any sort of rank order. Therefore, in its present form, it could not be used for the purposes of selection.
Mr Donaldson: Implicit in your remarks is the suggestion that the pupil profile could be developed, by changing its layout and so forth. My children’s reports clearly tell me where they came in the class in their examination results, the class average for the results and so on. If it is possible to include that kind of information in a pupil profile, is it not also possible, at least in theory, to develop pupil profiles so that they could be used in other ways? For example, in the event of oversubscription, a school could use pupil profiles as one of the criteria for selection.
Mr Woods: In theory, everything is possible. However, two issues must be borne in mind. First, we know from historical experience that primary schoolteachers will not be comfortable with the idea that what they write in a pupil’s report will determine which school that pupil goes to at the age of 11, and their position must be considered.
Secondly, using the information contained in the profile in that high-stakes manner would raise the issue of ensuring consistency. For example, my child’s profile could show that he is third in the class, but how would that profile compare with that of another child who is fourth or fifth in a different class, based on a different class test? There are issues about ensuring consistency and validity in that sort of arrangement.
Mr Donaldson: I appreciate that. The consultation document stated that the pupil profile was to provide parents with information about the most appropriate school for their children. What does the word "appropriate" actually mean in that context? Does it indicate a tacit acceptance that certain schools are better for children with particular aptitudes? Does that not implicitly represent a form of selection, even if it is the parents who are making the decision?
Mr Woods: I am not sure about the particular reference that Mr Donaldson mentioned — it may be a bit of poor drafting on our part. The purpose of the profile is to allow parents to determine which is the most appropriate school for their child. The Department does not determine that — it does not have a definition of the most appropriate school.
It is clear that some form of differentiation— selection is perhaps the wrong word — is implicit. The Government have not said that they will abolish grammar schools, so there will be different types of schools with different educational characteristics and different styles of curriculum. Thus, under the current proposals, parents must choose which type of school is most suitable for their child.
Mr Donaldson: Finally, what work has the Department carried out on alternatives to the 11-plus examination since 2000? Has any work been carried out on a proposed acceptable alternative to the 11-plus? For example, has any work been carried out on whether future admissions criteria might involve some form of examination, either through continuous testing or through pupil profiling? Is any such work available from the Department?
Mr Woods: No.
Mr Donaldson: The Department has not carried out any work on replacing the 11-plus?
Mr Woods: Not with regard to selection by ability. The work that has been carried out has been based on the Minister’s view that there ought not to be selection based on ability.
10.45 am
Mr McNarry: Gentlemen, you are welcome. The message that I receive from parents and teachers in my constituency, and in every constituency that I have visited lately, is that education is overwhelmed by documentation but underwhelmed by satisfactory outcomes. The issue of academic selection has been held over for consideration by the Assembly, with which comes the murky world of deadlines and compelling handovers. Given that that is happening despite the possibility that a devolved Assembly may not be restored, it surely prompts some interesting thinking.
If there were to be no restoration — and I am sure that you are not betting against it — then, under continued direct rule, the passing of those deadlines vis-à-vis the future of the Assembly causes a state of confusion about the handover of deadlines relating to the 11-plus. I would welcome a statement from you outlining exactly how, in the absence of a restored Assembly, the Department would handle things under direct rule.
Dr Davison: You have entered political territory there, which the Department is not in a position to debate. The Department’s understanding of the legislation is that there is a deadline and that if it is not met, Ministers will proceed with the policy as enunciated before the legislation was passed. The Department cannot debate speculatively about what might happen if that deadline is not met: those are political issues.
Mr McNarry: Correct me if I am wrong but, in effect, the Department is preparing either for a deadline to be met or missed. If it is missed, the fate of academic selection will no longer be in the Assembly’s hands. The part of the legislation that leaves academic selection to be considered by the Assembly will be nullified, and the Department will kick into action with its proposals under new legislation.
Dr Davison: That is our understanding, but that is clearly a matter for Ministers.
Mr McNarry: It is a major concern for parents. I understand the restraints under which you are operating, and I am not trying to take you into political waters. However, some clarification would be helpful, because parents and teachers are trying to prepare for all eventualities. It is unfair to parents that the situation is so unclear — and I am sure that other Members have been hearing the same thing. They are asking what school uniform they should buy. Are you saying that you cannot offer the parents any help on that?
Mr Woods: Given that it is not a matter of opinion but of legislative fact, the Department can clearly state that if the Assembly is not restored by the date specified in the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006, the automatic consequence will be that the element of the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 banning academic selection comes into effect. There is no other intervening process.
Mr McNarry: You will understand that I cannot accept your choice of words — "the automatic consequence" — because that almost puts the blame on the Assembly.
Mr Woods: Sorry, I am not blaming anyone. It is what the law states.
Mr McNarry: The law does not refer to "consequences" and does not deal in consequences.
Mr Woods: The law simply states that if the Assembly is not restored by the specified date, academic selection will be banned.
Mr Ashe: It is also important to say that while academic selection will be banned at that point, the ban will not take effect until admissions in September 2010.
Mr McNarry: That is precisely the point, and I am glad that you have made it. That is a grey area for parents; they find —
Mr Ashe: The existing arrangements will continue until then.
Mr McNarry: I understand that, but the situation is not clear for parents. There is an onus on the Department of Education to try, where possible, to clarify the situation for parents. Equally, there is an onus on politicians to seek the Department’s help in clarifying the situation for parents. That would be valuable.
One of the principles set out in the post-primary consultation document is that:
"the interests of the child"
should be
"at the centre of the decision-making process".
However, none of the Department’s criteria mentions the real interest of the child. In your opinion, has that principle been achieved? Parental choice, which is given a great deal of credibility throughout the documents, is still an individual choice, yet there has been no recognition of the deserving case for a parent’s choice to be put into a parental voice, forum or organisation in order to give it some formal status. We have gone through all of this without having the benefit of a formal parental voice being heard on the admissions guidelines. I know that one of the Department’s tributaries is working on the new single education authority, and a parental voice may be considered there. Will the Department consider expediting that in light of the involvement of this subgroup and, in broader terms, the Assembly?
The new admissions criteria allow post-primary schools to use the category of "feeder" primary schools. What freedom or autonomy will post-primary schools have in determining which primary schools will, or could be, feeder schools? Many parents are anxious about that issue. It is important that parents know what degree of autonomy schools will have in determining which primary schools they use as feeder schools.
Parents will be selective about which primary school they send their children to. The restraints for bussing are not the same at that stage. Parents will say that they want their child to attend a certain school, because it is a recognised feeder school and their child will stand a better chance. That could lead to a form of discrimination. Parents cannot be faulted for seeking what is best for their children, and the system allows that to be explored by parents.
Dr Davison: The question of the parental voice is for the Minister to determine. The parental voice has been expressed in various consultations over the past few years, but on the specifics of where we go at this point or subsequently, it will be for Ministers to determine the way in which they want to assess the parental voice. Whether that be a forum, an organisation, a consultation or whatever will be a call for Ministers.
Mr McNarry: Do you agree with the principle, referred to in the consultation document, that the interests of the child should be central? One would expect, perhaps, that a parent would be the best person to uphold the interests of a child.
Mr Woods: That is certainly recognised; it is the rationale behind parental preference and giving parents the information to exercise that preference in an informed way, accepting that they have the best interests of their child at heart. That is one aspect of admissions. As Dr Davison said, the wider issue of the parental voice will have to be considered by Ministers in the context of the new education structures.
Mr McNarry: Will you take it back to the Minister? She is not really listening.
Mr Woods: The proceedings of the subgroup will be reported, and I am sure that the Minister will be able to pick that up.
Mr McNarry: She did not listen to previous proceedings. She was very badly briefed at an earlier meeting.
Mr John Leonard (Department of Education): Post-primary schools will define their feeder primary schools. The basis of the proposals is to try to have as much flexibility as possible for schools.
Mr D Bradley: On what basis will feeder primary schools be defined?
Mr Leonard: They will be defined on the basis of the extent to which the children who already attend the post-primary school have come from them. That will be a matter for the post-primary school. There are indications from the current system that —
Mr D Bradley: Therefore, a post-primary school cannot decide to add feeder primary schools to its list unless that primary school has contributed pupils over a number of years?
Dr Davison: The school will be free to choose on the basis of historical attendance. However, that freedom will be constrained. The Department of Education has the power to consider and approve where it thinks that there is doubt. What it would not want, for example, is for a primary school that has historically sent children to a post-primary school to be excluded on rather strange grounds. The Department will be in a position to monitor and challenge those sorts of decisions.
Mr McNarry: I accept what you say, Mr Leonard. However, given the school closures and amalgamations that we face today, what degree of flexibility is built into those criteria? What if an established school, with those kinds of links, hits the wall? How does the post-primary school make a decision when, for instance, it used to be school A, but now schools A and B have joined together? How does it address that situation? Is it still the school’s decision?
Dr Davison: In that situation the new school would revisit —
Mr McNarry: Who would sanction that revisit?
Dr Davison: Given the Department’s power to intervene, it would want to examine what emerged from that.
Mr McNarry: When a primary school has closed or been amalgamated, and is in the process of making representations to re-establish links with a post-primary school where there is now no history, must that be sanctioned by the Department of Education, and could there be disruption to that process?
11.00 am
Dr Davison: In the current system, when an amalgamation takes place, the same process applies. The difference will be the Department’s role in the process. I am not assuming that there will be any major dislocation of any process. The purpose is to leave as much in the hands of the school as possible, because it knows the local circumstances best.
Mr Woods: There will be no mystery about what are, or are not treated as feeder primary schools. The post-primary schools will have to list the feeder primary schools in their admissions booklet or prospectus, so parents will know what the position is. In circumstances where there is an amalgamation — which would not happen overnight — there would always be adequate notice. The list of feeder schools can be extended.
Mr McNarry: I understand that. I know that you have not had a chance to adopt the Bain Report, but there is a reference in it about the funding of preparatory schools. They are obvious feeder schools in a true sense. Is that likely to have any impact?
Dr Davison: It is too early to speculate on that.
The Chairman (Mr Wells): The next question is from Ms Caitríona Ruane, to be followed by Mr Barry McElduff. They have been waiting for some time.
Ms Ruane: Fáilte romhaibh. You are very welcome. Thank you for the papers that you presented and for taking questions from us.
There is much angst about all the changes. Perhaps that is because — as you can hear from my accent — I did not grow up in the North of Ireland, although my children are in school here.
In my town, the changes happened very seamlessly and easily, and parental choice was fundamental to the process. Very few parents were unhappy about the changes and the schools that were chosen to transfer pupils from primary to secondary school. Different factors were taken into consideration, such as whether the pupils wanted to go to an Irish-medium secondary school, etc. I am not as worried about the situation as some other people. However, I understand the angst, because change is difficult.
The changes will benefit society in the longer term and create a more cohesive society. Initially, there will be much angst, but eventually, common sense will prevail. Parents with busy lives will get used to sending their children to the nearest school, because they do not want to spend half an hour travelling every morning. Change also brings dynamism and creativity. Once we get over the initial difficulties, that dynamism will kick in.
I come from a border area: I live in the South and my kids go to school in the North, so you can see where my question is coming from as regards catchment areas. Are you meeting with an Roinn Oideachais agus Eolaíochta (Department of Education and Science) in the South of Ireland? There would be no point in setting up a system in the North of Ireland when we will have North/South Ministerial Councils. The nearest post-primary school for my kids is in Newry rather than in Dundalk, as is my nearest primary school of choice for the Irish language. What thought has been given to North/South catchment areas? I am sure that the same applies for Inishowen and Castleblayney, and vice versa. That has other implications; one of the banes of my life is that there is no transport for my kids, which is a pain in the neck and does not make sense. What thought has been given to that issue, and what work are you doing in relation to that?
I love the idea of schools specialising in different subjects, such as music. How would that work in relation to catchment areas or criteria?
I must declare an interest as regards my next question. What would the development of Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta — Irish-medium secondary, primary and pre-schools — naíscoileanna — mean for the development of new schools? At the moment, there is a gap in provision. My child had all her primary education in a bunscoil, and yet there is no meánscoil for her, and she is now in an English-speaking secondary school, which is heartbreaking for me. Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta has plans for development in areas where there is a gap in provision, such as Downpatrick, Newry and west Tyrone.
The same is true of the integrated sector, and there will be dynamism in the way in which schools will work together. I hope that we will start to see more natural integration of the current schooling system rather than a new integrated set-up, although that is an issue in which people are also interested. What is the Department doing about gaps in provision, and are there any barriers to groups such as Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta and the integrated movement? It would be very worrying if there were any barriers.
The issue of special needs is very dear to my heart, as it is to other politicians around the table. Children who do not get the right intervention at the right stage is something that breaks my heart. There is some very good early intervention, but what are the plans for special needs? Mainstreaming is also an issue. We really must examine the provision for giving children the best start at post-primary level. Go raibh maith agat.
Dr Davison: Where do we start? Let us take catchment areas. The Department has been working on a set of proposals that emerged from a consideration of the existing system. The Department has not consulted on what the admissions criteria would be, so there is no agreement on them. Ministers intended to consult on the issue, but it has still to be considered. The North/South dimension means that there is clearly an issue about border areas. The Department of Education is in regular contact with colleagues in the Department of Education and Science. At this stage, full consideration has not been given about what is incorporated formally. Nonetheless, the Department is aware that it would be wise to talk to colleagues in the Department of Education and Science about catchment areas around the border. That is the best answer that I can give you on that issue.
Catchment areas have not yet been an issue with regard to specialist schools. The Department’s approach to specialist schools is via school improvement. The school uses its specialism to improve on a more general basis and to link into the new curriculum 14+, with its emphasis on a wider provision and a more collaborative approach to the curriculum, where the specialist school can be seen in a wider context. Specialist schools have not yet been read into catchment areas in a detailed way.
The Department has clearly established criteria for the establishment of new schools in the Irish-medium sector. Those proposals go through the same development proposal route as those for other schools. That is the policy at the moment. It is too early for us to say what we make of proposals in the Bain Report.
Ms Ruane quite rightly said that special needs is an area of real importance. We have brought in a schools inspector with expertise in that area to review special educational needs; that review is under way. We have brought together a panel of the main players in that area, and work has been ongoing for three or four months. We hope to have an outcome in the new year. The Department regards special educational needs as a really important issue.
Ms Ruane: Who is the inspector, and who is chairing that?
Dr Davison: The inspector is Marleen Collins.
Mr Ashe: Parents will have a choice of different types of schools. There will be those with an academic curricular emphasis and those with a vocational curricular emphasis, and there will be specialist schools. Therefore, specialist schools will be one of a range of schools from which parents can choose. At the moment, there is a small number of such schools, but that will increase.
Mr McElduff: From the information that you have provided, I understand that 100 schools have trialled the pupil profile, which has been evaluated independently. Two questions arise from that. First, what information about the profile would parents like? Secondly, what do teachers say about its manageability? Perhaps we should deal with those questions first, and I will ask my other two questions later.
Mr Woods: Parents and teachers in the schools that have undertaken the pilot generally reacted positively to it. Parents have appreciated the format of the pupil profile and the information that it contains. They expressed views about ensuring that it was written in good, clear English rather than in teacher-speak, as it were. Therefore, we must ensure that the language in which it is expressed is meaningful and accessible to all parents.
Teachers were generally content with the pupil profile. At an early stage, they expressed fears about its being an additional burden. However, since it is meant to replace the annual reports that schools already provide, there should be no extra burden. We are making arrangements to provide computer software that will allow teachers to complete the pupil profiles using their laptops or other equipment. They can call down comment banks that would help them to populate the report. The aim is to make the pupil profile meaningful for parents but manageable for schools, and the pilot work to date confirms that that is the case.
People have issues with parts of the pupil profile, but the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) has been adjusting the format of the profile to address those concerns.
Mr McElduff: Named parishes, named feeder schools and named catchment areas play a part in admissions. I am thinking of schools such as the Christian Brothers Grammar School in Omagh. Primary schools in Castlederg and Aghyaran are natural pathways to schools in Omagh, but people might consider that those areas are, technically, in the Strabane district. However, people who live in Castlederg or Aghyaran shop in Omagh, or perhaps in Ballybofey; in the main, however, people from those places go to school in Omagh.
Are natural, cultural and social pathways taken into account? For example, a big fear that I have heard expressed in that community is that its enriching contribution to Omagh CBS may not continue, even though people would like it to. Is a cut-off planned that would mean that people from that community would be discouraged from going to Omagh and encouraged to go elsewhere?
Dr Davison: In the first instance, it would be for the schools in Omagh to determine their feeder schools. When it comes to monitoring, I doubt whether we would intervene to stop that connection being as broad as the school felt that it should be. It would not be in our interest to break natural pathways.
Unfortunately, I am not as familiar with the Omagh area as Mr McElduff is, but we need to see how maintaining those connections would work in practice. The first call would be to ask what schools see as their feeder schools and how they see their natural pathways. I am sure that a historical picture would be built up over many years.
Mr Woods: A wider issue relates to rural schools and rural communities in general. If a school is oversubscribed after it has applied whatever other criteria it has decided to use, it may still retain some sort of a tie-breaker at the bottom end. If it were to use proximity to the school, the most rural would be most likely to be disadvantaged. We anticipate that our advice to schools in those areas would be that a randomised approach, rather than a distance-based approach, tie-breaker might be better. That approach would not disadvantage those at the greatest distance.
11.15 am
Mr McElduff: I have learnt about the development of learning partnerships in communities such as Limavady, which is very progressive in its approach. What value is there in establishing learning partnerships now to be ready for the future?
Mr Woods: Learning partnerships are coming about naturally from the bottom up as part of the work that schools have been doing in anticipation of the entitlement framework requirements, which seek to provide access to a wider range of subjects for pupils. It has always been recognised that schools cannot do that if they are working in isolation; they will need to collaborate with one another and with their local further education colleges.
Schools in several areas have been developing their thinking and holding conversations among themselves about how they might make arrangements to provide that wider range of subjects. The Limavady partnership pre-dates anything that the Department was doing on the entitlement framework requirements, to be honest. Nevertheless, it is a good example of what can be done. We are aware of similar developments in other areas.
Earlier, Mr Donaldson mentioned the Burns collegiates. These did not receive much positive comment, as it was felt that they were over-engineered and were brigading schools into certain clusters without the schools having had a say in the matter. The present approach is to leave it to schools to make pragmatic decisions on collaborative arrangements. The idea of considering provision on an area basis, which I notice is a feature of the proposals in the Bain Report, has much to commend it, as the proposals should ensure that when individual components are taken together, they make for a broader range of provision for the young people of an area.
Dr Davison: Mr McElduff asked about the value of learning partnerships. We have always considered education to be of personal benefit: it is a good thing to be an educated person. We have always regarded schools as having social and cultural value. The revised curriculum, of which the entitlement framework is a key part, recognises the economic purpose of education in opening up the curriculum to include not just academic provision after the age of 14 but what the Department for Employment and Learning calls professional/technical provision for all pupils.
Therefore, the value of learning partnerships in either school to school, school to further education college or in a broad mixture of those settings is in trying to develop that aspect of schooling as well as the more traditional aspects. That ties in with the work that the Department for Employment and Learning has done in skills development. That is another dimension of learning partnerships.
The Chairman (Mr Wells): Although we have had the main questioning, several members wish to ask a supplementary question. Can we keep the questions to one or one and a half?
Mr D Bradley: Since I asked only one question in the first place —
[Laughter.]
The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is an important issue, and I have allowed members to tease out points with the representatives from the Department. Mr Donaldson, Mr Bradley and Mr McNarry will now put their questions, and then there will be an opportunity for other members to ask one final question.
Mr Donaldson: Your paper says that non-academic admissions criteria:
"would be required whether or not it is decided that academic selection should form part of future admissions policy: they would be used by non-grammar schools, and also by grammar schools where it is necessary to differentiate within a given ‘ability’ group."
I am anxious to explore what you mean by "ability" in the context of non-academic admissions criteria.
Mr Leonard: At the moment, grammar schools that are oversubscribed within a grade — A or B1 or B2 — apply their non-academic criteria to decide which pupils to admit. That is the current pattern. Under an assumed non-academic scenario, all grammar schools would apply non-academic criteria all the time and would not have academic criteria. The purpose of the criteria is to give them a menu from which to draw.
Mr Donaldson: I appreciate that, Mr Leonard, but, with respect, that is not what I asked. I understand that what we are moving to at the moment is non-academic selection procedures. However, the Department talks about:
"where it is necessary to differentiate within a given ‘ability’ group."
I am anxious to explore what you mean by "ability" and how you define that. What does that mean in the context of non-academic selection procedures?
Mr Woods: In the context from which you quoted, we are saying that if there were to be academic selection, those same criteria would serve a certain purpose. That is perhaps what has caused the confusion. In that context, "ability" would be determined by whatsoever means a future Administration decided. That would be the issue. It is one of the questions that you must grapple with. If we are not going to have the existing transfer test but still want to have something that allows for academic selection, the question is quite what —
Mr Donaldson: I am sorry, Mr Chairman, for pursuing this, but I am not getting what I am looking for. I appreciate where the gentlemen are coming from, but that is not actually what the paper says. The paper states:
"These would be required whether or not it is decided that academic selection should form part of future admissions policy."
So it is in either context.
Mr Woods: You are right. That is bad drafting, specifically on my part. I contributed that sentence; I should stop contributing sentences. We tried to deal with both sides. Of course, in a non-academic situation, all the criteria that schools apply would be non-academic. If — and it is still "if", depending on what happens with devolution — there is going to an element of selection, we are simply saying that the work done on the non-academic criteria has not been nugatory. It will still be required, even in the event of academic selection. First, there will be a group of schools that will not use the academic criteria, and, secondly, the grammar schools will need it further down their list of criteria. I apologise for any confusion.
Mr Donaldson: My half-question is a very simple one. You talked about the different elements that a school might include in its admissions criteria. There is the "nearest school" or "nearest suitable school" aspect. My question concerns school transport. As you know, at the moment a child qualifies for school transport at post-primary level only if the distance between his or her home and the nearest suitable school is more than three miles.
Currently, "suitable" is defined in different ways. How will it be defined in the future? If the term "nearest suitable school" has a much wider definition in the future and can include any post-primary school — or will it include any post-primary school? — then what do you mean by the word "suitable"?
Dr Davison: One issue that feeds into that is the Bain Report, and how Sir George Bain sees the world developing in the future. One of the issues will relate to that definition and the world that Bain portrays. We will then need to consider what is meant by the term "nearest suitable school", because there is a picture that suits the current situation, but that may not suit the decisions that are taken in relation to the Bain Report.
We will have to consider the direction that the Bain Report takes us in as regards the overall planning of the schools estate, the nature of the schools estate and, importantly, the transport implications. One of the main school transport issues is the resource implication, the costs. We need to take that issue on board in relation to the debate on the Bain Report.
Mr D Bradley: I want to return to the issue of pupil profiling. I understand that the pupil profile will be a formative document, in so far as it will outline a pupil’s successes and achievements, as well as areas for future development that will be addressed by the school, the teacher and even the parents. It is on that basis that primary schoolteachers have agreed to co-operate in the production of pupil profiles, and I believe that they have the support of their unions in that.
I assume that, if pupil profiles become an instrument of academic selection, that goodwill will not be forthcoming, either from the teachers’ unions or, indeed, the teachers themselves. Does that mean that pupil profiles could not be used as an instrument of academic selection in the future, purely on the grounds of the probable withdrawal of support for pupil profiling from teachers and teachers’ unions?
Mr Woods: It would be inappropriate for me to comment on what the position of individual teachers’ unions might be. I mentioned that we would have to have regard to that issue in the context of whether pupil profiling will be used as a basis for selection or whether it will form some part of the selection process.
Those with long enough memories will remember a process that was attempted for a few years in the late 1970s whereby the recommendation of the primary school determined whether a pupil moved to a grammar school or a non-grammar school. That process was fraught with difficulties and only survived for a couple of years. The evidence of history tells us that there are certain constraints on what can be done.
Mr Ashe: There is further historical evidence on the use of assessment outcomes for transfer purposes. That proposal was originally mooted when assessment was introduced but had to be shelved, simply because teachers were not prepared to take part in the training, and so forth, if the assessment outcomes were to be used for transfer purposes. That example contributes to the historical picture.
Mr D Bradley: Just to make up the balance from my only having asked one question at the beginning —
The Chairman (Mr Wells): This is your half-question.
Mr D Bradley: If academic selection were introduced, how would it impact on the other provisions of the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, given that that Order is largely predicated on the existence of a non-selective system during its period of operation?
Mr Woods: The other main provisions of the Order concern the curriculum and the entitlement framework. Those provisions can proceed, and are proceeding, on the basis that was originally planned. Those provisions are free-standing and can, therefore, proceed.
11.30 am
Mr D Bradley: You said that the new curriculum could be a driver for the economy. I understood by that that it would provide many skills that are currently lacking in the workplace. If academic selection were reintroduced, the present situation would continue. Those skills that we would expect to get in the workplace through the operation of the new curriculum would not, in all probability, be forthcoming.
Dr Davison: Under the proposals, one third of the curriculum offered to all children — whether they are in academically selected schools or not — has to be what the Department for Employment and Learning calls "professional and technical". The provision offered to children would have to include that dimension of learning. That would obtain whether selection continues or not. That is an important part of the plan.
Mr McNarry: How can you square the circle on curriculum content and vocational education for 14- to 19-year-olds on the back of this morning’s report when so many pupils fail to reach standards? Many are not achieving; their education stops, in effect, at the age of six. That is a point to which I hope to return.
Does the Department categorically rule out any elements of selection while direct rule continues?
Dr Davison: The Department cannot answer that; that question should be addressed to Ministers. Policy is determined by legislation. Ministers, whether devolved or direct-rule, will decide what happens. It is not for civil servants to determine.
If I may address your first question —
Mr McNarry: I wish that you had answered my second.
Dr Davison: I cannot. It is for Ministers to determine direction.
Mr McNarry: Surely the Department can determine the direction that a Minister might take.
The Chairman (Mr Wells): Or advise Ministers.
Mr McNarry: Is that not why this Minister and her predecessors are in such a blooming mess?
Mr Donaldson: Resist the temptation.
Dr Davison: My job is to give advice to Ministers and to implement their policies.
Mr McNarry: And therefore you cannot possibly comment.
Dr Davison: I will answer your first question, which is important. The Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have illustrated an important issue. It ties in with the importance of providing for special educational needs.
The Department rightly congratulates itself on the quality of outcomes in its system. Sometimes, however, that success masks underachievement, which was pointed out in a straightforward manner by the Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. Underachievement presents the Department with a significant problem. One of the Department’s responses is to strengthen greatly the emphasis in the revised curriculum on basic skills such as literacy, numeracy, and information and communications technology. It is conscious that underachievement is a significant issue.
Mr McNarry: This is my half-bit now —
The Chairman (Mr Wells): Strictly speaking, this is not in the subgroup’s terms of reference.
Mr McNarry: If you allow me to complete my question —
Mr D Bradley: If I leave the room at this stage, does he have to stop?
Mr McNarry: Do you accept that academic selection has had no bearing whatsoever on the figures in that report, and that it is not a barrier to pupils?
Dr Davison: That is a big question, to which I cannot give you a simple answer. It is a moot point as to whether the selection of pupils with the highest ability has a negative impact on those not selected.
Mr McNarry: We are talking about eight-year-olds.
Dr Davison: We are not just talking about eight-year-olds: underachievement is a significant problem at Key Stage 3 and at Key Stage 2.
Mr D Bradley: It continues into adulthood.
Dr Davison: Whether selection affects those not selected is a moot point.
You said that there are problems at primary-school level, which would come through; however, it is a moot point whether those problems are accentuated by what happens at the age of 11. That is a huge question, to which I cannot give a simple answer.
Mr McNarry: Could you give me an answer in writing? Could you give the subgroup an answer in writing?
Mr Woods: It comes back to the question of how relevant it is to the subgroup.
The Chairman (Mr Wells): You were given a clear indication of the constraints under which we, as a Committee, were acting. I am happy that you have dealt with that subject to the satisfaction of most members.
We have time for a final supplementary question. It must be extremely short, because we must stop at 11.45 am.
Ms Ruane: I wish to make a point that I hope will be taken in the right — Nílim in ann.
Mr D Bradley: Spirit.
Ms Ruane: The right spirit. Go raibh maith agat.
Mr McElduff: I know what point you are about to make, Caitríona. Go for it.
Ms Ruane: I am a big fan of gender equality.
Mr McNarry: Try to include the rest of us in this.
Ms Ruane: I will, David. I always include you.
Mr McNarry: You wanted to be called "Caterina", or whatever, earlier. Now we do not know what you are talking about.
Ms Ruane: Gender equality is important in society, and many of our teachers and educationalists are women. Any future delegations should include a senior woman from the Department of Education.
Dr Davison: I will certainly pass that request to Will Haire. After all, I have come from a Department where I was a token male.
Mr Donaldson: I want to return briefly to the guidance principles for admissions criteria. There is great public concern about postcode lotteries, particularly in areas in where there is likely to be oversubscription, such as my Lagan Valley constituency and, in particular, Lisburn. You talk about the need to ensure that:
"the combined effect of the criteria does not result in postcode selection or social exclusion, and that it does not disadvantage pupils living in particular areas e.g. rural areas or pupils attending feeder primary schools that are not given an appropriate degree of priority for admission."
I am anxious to know how those living in rural communities such as Glenavy, Ballinderry, Moira, Hillsborough and Annahilt can avoid ending up with postcode selection. There is a massive population in the urban core where schools are located. How can the Department ensure that pupils who live in rural areas and attend rural primary schools are not disadvantaged?
Mr Woods: Part of the answer to that lies in the flexibility that the Department envisages in the admissions criteria, which will allow schools to define for themselves the range of feeder primary schools or other catchment arrangements. The new education authority, as and when it arrives, will be anxious to ensure in considering those issues that no small primary school in a rural setting has, inadvertently or otherwise, been omitted and the children not given an appropriate measure of priority. It is simply to ensure that whatever arrangements are put in place operate as fairly and comprehensively as possible across the board, so that there is inclusion for everyone.
Dr Davison: Also, sitting in Bangor and not knowing the specifics of every locality, the Department is open to taking representations if areas feel that in some way the arrangements that are being arrived at by schools are going to disadvantage them.
Mr D Bradley: Are you saying that it may be possible for grammar schools to retain their current catchment areas, which one could say are defined by their feeder primary schools?
Dr Davison: In the first instance, the grammar school, or any school, will nominate what it considers to be its feeder primary schools. As far as the Department is concerned, it will be a matter for the local body — either the board, if the boards still exist, or the education authority — to look carefully atwhat that says about the area from which the school is drawing its pupils to see whether there are any issues with that.
I believe that folk would raise those issues locally with the new education and skills authority, the boards or the Department if they felt that, in some way, they were being particularly disadvantaged. The system itself would have to be satisfied that they were not being disadvantaged.
Mr D Bradley: As Jeffrey said, if it were possible to ensure that rural children would not be disadvantaged under those circumstances, the fear that some people have of a postcode lottery would also be removed.
Dr Davison: The Department has stated that it does not want a postcode lottery. It will do its best to ensure that that does not apply.
The Chairman (Mr Wells): I must call it a day at that point, gentlemen. Thank you for coming. As you can see, we read your briefing notes carefully and ask some difficult questions. The subgroup reserves the right to give you feedback in written form or to ask further questions, because, as you know, the issue is controversial and difficult. It has attracted much interest. The subgroup appreciates your coming at short notice to give us that highly adequate briefing. Undoubtedly, we will see you again at some stage. Thank you.
Dr Davison: Thank you very much.
Adjourned at 11.40 am.