COMMITTEE FOR EDUCATION
OFFICIAL REPORT
(Hansard)
Education Bill
18 March 2009
Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Mervyn Storey (Chairperson)
Mr Dominic Bradley (Deputy Chairperson)
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Tom Elliott
Mr Trevor Lunn
Mr Nelson McCausland
Miss Michelle McIlveen
Mr John O’Dowd
Mrs Michelle O’Neill
Mr Edwin Poots
Witnesses:
Cardinal Seán Brady }
Mr John Gordon }
Bishop Donal McKeown } Northern Ireland Commissioner for Catholic Education
Bishop Patrick Walsh }
Sister Eithne Woulfe }
Mr Donal Flanagan )
Mr John Gordon )
Ms La’Verne Montgomery ) Council for Catholic Maintained Schools
Bishop John McAreavey )
The Chairperson (Mr Storey):
Cardinal Brady and delegation, you are very welcome to the Education Committee meeting this morning. Thank you also for making your submission to us in writing; members have had it for a few days. The acoustics in the Chamber are not great, so please bear that in mind. It would help us all to hear your submission clearly so that there will be no confusion. Please make your presentation, Cardinal, and then members will ask questions on it.
His Eminence Cardinal Seán Brady, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland (Northern Ireland Commission for Catholic Education):
Thank you, Mr Chairman. On behalf of the Northern Ireland Commission for Catholic Education (NICCE), I would like to thank the members of the Education Committee for their kind invitation to discuss our submission on the draft Education Bill. We are very happy to do so.
The Northern Ireland Commission for Catholic Education speaks for the trustees of the entire family of Catholic schools; that network consists of some 550 nursery, primary and post-primary maintained and voluntary schools in Northern Ireland.
I am joined this morning by some of the members of our commission: Bishop Patrick Walsh, a former Bishop of Down and Connor; Sister Eithne Woulfe, Sister of the Order of St Louis, a religious order that has schools across Ireland, including Kilkeel and Ballymena; and Bishop Donal McKeown, chairman of the commission. We are joined by Mr John Gordon, legal adviser to the commission. We are happy to answer any questions that you might have regarding our written submission.
Before addressing that submission, however, I am conscious that we meet in the aftermath of the brutal murders of Constable Stephen Carroll and Sappers Cenzig Azimkar and Mark Quinsey. I consider those crimes an attack on the whole community. They were an attack on the democratic will of people across this island and on their overwhelming support for the institution in which we are gathered this morning. I am therefore mindful that we are engaging with you today as democratically elected Members of the legislative Assembly. We are engaging in the privileged context of a democracy — a privilege that we can never take for granted. We do so with great respect for you and for your role as politicians.
I am mindful too of our shared duty as elected and as civic leaders to do all that we can to consolidate the progress already made towards a more secure, confident and reconciled future for everyone in our society, not least for the young people.
As trustees of Catholic schools, we are fully committed to playing our part in building a more peaceful future for all in our society. As stated in our publication ‘Building Peace, Shaping the Future’, our society in Northern Ireland has been characterised by profound conflict, and those charged with the education of our young people have an important role to play in breaking down barriers of ignorance, misunderstanding and suspicion. Our schools cannot carry the full responsibility for reconciliation on their own, but we recognise that they have an important part to play.
The publication went on to state that tolerance and respect for difference are at the heart of all Christian and human education. That brings me directly to our submission on the draft Education Bill — respect for diversity is one of the key values underpinning that submission. We see respect for diversity as part of the contribution that Catholic schools make to our society. We also see that respect for diversity as part of the obligation of society to Catholic and, indeed, other schools.
In Britain, the Republic of Ireland, and many other parts of the world, the provision of publicly funded, faith-based schools — or other schools founded on a particular philosophical, cultural or linguistic ethos — is accepted as a normal part of society. I hold that the provision of a diverse range of schools is the mark of a mature, tolerant and reconciled society. Since that is the type of society to which we in Northern Ireland aspire, it follows that we should provide for a variety of schools, based on available resources, from which parents may choose.
The principle of diverse provision is also recognised and protected in international instruments on human rights. Notably, protocol 1, article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights upholds the right of parents to have their children educated in a manner consistent with their religious or philosophical convictions. As trustees of Catholic schools, we have a duty to strive to ensure that that right of parents is adequately respected and provided for in the Education Bill.
As the Bill stands, we remain unclear as to how certain key aspects of the proposed legislation will operate. We therefore have significant reservations about our ability to support key aspects of the Bill in its current form. Perhaps the Committee will address our concerns.
Before outlining some of those concerns, I want to make it clear that any right that we seek to have respected or any provision or resource that we seek for Catholic schools, we seek for each and every provider of education in Northern Ireland. Therefore we support those elected representatives and others who uphold the principle of equality in education policy and provision in Northern Ireland.
In doing so, we are conscious that some people may have the impression that the Catholic sector is somehow advantaged over other sectors in Northern Ireland; that is historically incorrect. Indeed, until relatively recently, the Catholic sector received less support from the state than any other sector. However, it is true that when other sectors transferred ownership of their schools to the state, the Catholic community maintained its ownership; that took place at considerable financial cost to the Catholic community, particularly to our Catholic parishes. However, it was a cost that generations of Catholics were willing to bear in order to guarantee the ethos of their schools and the right of parents to have such schools. Responsibility for ensuring the continuation of that right falls to us as the trustees of Catholic schools in Northern Ireland, and it is a right that we will strive to uphold in all circumstances.
However, as trustees, it is becoming increasingly clear to us that one consequence of the decision of the Transferor Representatives’ Council (TRC) to hand their schools over to the state is that many parents from other Christian traditions, as well as those from other cultural, ethnic or linguistic backgrounds, believe that their right to have schools with a particular ethos is not adequately provided for. On behalf of the Catholic trustees, I want to make it clear that we will lend our wholehearted support to any legislative or policy change that facilitates the right of parents from other religious, cultural, linguistic or ethnic backgrounds to be more adequately addressed.
To ensure adequate provision for parents who choose a Catholic education for their children, we have highlighted in our submission several key issues that need to be further clarified or addressed in the Education Bill. There are three critical issues on which we are happy to elaborate in our response to Committee members’ questions. First, there is a need to clarify the role of the education and skills authority (ESA) as the employer and/or the employing authority. The proposal in clause 3 for the ESA to be the employer of all staff in all schools is unacceptable; it is a fundamental impediment to the ability of owners/trustees to exercise their right and duty to promote and guard the ethos and defining character of a school. To exercise our duties as trustees adequately, we require that the board of governors of each school be the legal employer of all staff in their schools. As it stands, the provision in the Bill appears to run counter to the principle, which we support, of giving maximised autonomy to schools. Therefore we suggest that further clarification is needed on clause 8.
We accept that the functions of each sectoral support body will be as agreed between the Department of Education and the owners/trustees as stated in policy paper 21. The functions of a sectoral body will be complementary and will not duplicate or overlap with the functions of the ESA. That should be reflected in the proposed legislation. The business plan submitted by the Catholic trustees addresses any fears that members of the Committee may have about the proposed scale of such a body for the Catholic sector — or indeed for any other sector; we are not trying to create a new Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS). However, we need adequate support to enable the discharge of functions that properly belong to owners/trustees. That would also avoid the necessity of the ESA having, in effect, to negotiate key decisions with every individual school in a given sector. Those support bodies make sense in terms of value for money and good administration.
They have already been shown to play a key role in raising standards. Policy and/or legislation provision must be made for their role in supporting schools in the appointment of teachers, particularly at leadership level; their role on behalf of school owners in the planning and provision of schools; their advocacy role on behalf of a given sector; and their role in supporting and developing ethos.
Similarly, there is no point in having such support bodies if schools in a sector can ignore them. Therefore, it is critical that legislation place a duty on boards of governors to co-operate with the support body in their respective sector. Strong and committed boards of governors are required to maximise autonomy and to ensure the ethos of a school. Clarification is required on the appointment of community governors. It is essential that legislation reflect the importance of making such appointments in consultation with owners and trustees.
That is a short overview of the main issues that we want to bring to the Committee’s attention. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to explain those issues directly. We are happy to take questions — at least my colleagues are. [Laughter.]
The Chairperson:
You have delegated autonomy on the commission’s behalf, Cardinal. First of all, Cardinal, the Committee endorses your opening comments on the recent murders. One of the soldiers who was murdered in Antrim will be buried today, and our thoughts and prayers continue to be with those who have suffered as a result of those heinous crimes. We welcome everyone in our society’s condemnation of those events.
We appreciate the candid way in which you have raised issues. In the past weeks, the Committee has listened to the concerns of several organisations, and we will continue to take oral evidence from relevant organisations to establish plainly how the Bill can be amended to become more acceptable. Your remarks underscored an issue that has been prevalent in our deliberations — the lack of clarity. A more than considerable mist still hangs over the detail — or lack of detail — on the ESA, particularly on the issue of employment and the employer.
Last week, the Committee heard the Governing Bodies Association (GBA) raise its concerns, which the Department dismissed in a subsequent rebuttal. As the process continues, there seems to be — as with most issues in Northern Ireland — two camps. The various education providers are of the opinion that there is no clarity on the employer issue. However, the other body of opinion — primarily the Department — believes that there has been a misunderstanding and maintains that there is clarity in the Bill and that it contains no threat to the various bodies that raised concerns.
Members should indicate their desire to ask questions, because I do not want to ask all the questions; I am sure that the Committee will agree that I have never done that. Cardinal, will you and your team clarify the current representation of trustees on boards of governors?
What influence and consultation rights do trustees have in the appointment of other members of a board? Is the representation and influence not sufficient to enable trustees to trust boards of governors to safeguard the ethos of Catholic schools in formulating schemes of management and employment? Is that not enough to ensure that the ethos is developed and maintained by a body that is significantly accountable to trustees?
Dr Brady:
I invite Bishop Walsh to take that question, because he has much more experience of serving on boards of governors in this part of the world than I have.
Most Reverend Patrick Walsh, Bishop Emeritus of Down and Connor (Northern Ireland Commission for Catholic Education):
That is a very important question. We talk about the ethos of a school, and we all know that each school has its own character. However, it is essential to us that the entire Catholic sector has an overarching ethos, and that is what we seek to maintain. It is the responsibility and duty of bishops, religious and trustees to determine the overarching ethos of each school, and each school also has its own particular character within that ethos.
We expect every member of the board of governors of one of our schools to subscribe to the ethos of that school; there is no point in appointing someone to the governing body of a school who is not in agreement with the general ethos of that school. The CCMS, of which I was a member for many years, had several members who were not of the Catholic faith. However, those people were totally in tune with the ethos for which the CCMS stands, and they made a valuable contribution. Irrespective of their tradition, no one who does not accept the ethos of one of our schools should be a member of the board of governors of that school.
Under the current composition, trustees have the right to appoint directly four members of a board of governors; there is also an elected teacher, an elected parent and so on. Until now, the Department of Education has appointed its two members in consultation with the trustees, and the education and library boards have done likewise in the maintained sector. Those appointments have always been made in consultation with trustees, and we want the new legislation to ensure that that continues. I understand that the relevant schedules of the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 and of the previous Order still apply and that there will be meaningful consultation with the trustees with regard to appointments.
We have no problem with the ESA having the right to make appointments — whether two, if that is the number decided — to the board of governors of our schools, provided that those appointments are made in meaningful consultation with the trustees. It is for that reason that we have asked for the phrase “in consultation with” to be used in the legislation rather than simply “consulting”. That should ensure meaningful consultation rather than allow people merely to say, “We have consulted; end of story.” We want serious and meaningful consultation and, therefore, assurance that those who are appointed to the board of governors of a school subscribe to the ethos of that school.
Most Reverend Donal McKeown, Auxiliary Bishop of Down and Connor (Northern Ireland Commission for Catholic Education):
We all want a more effective and efficient running of our education system. The Government have the legislature, the Executive and the judiciary; similarly, there is a range of bodies in the education system between which a balance must be maintained. Those bodies include the Department of Education, the ESA, the trustees and owners of schools and boards of governors; they all have vital and complementary roles to play in the running of schools. We have a sense of a sectoral identity, but governors are committed to running their schools.
It is a question of striking a balance between harnessing the passion of individual governors and their commitment to their schools — which has raised standards across the educational community in Northern Ireland — and the broader educational communities. There are balances to be struck; we do not seek out-and-out control.
Under present legislation, boards of governors have a huge amount of power and trustees have a negligible amount of right. We are trying to determine how to ensure that all education stakeholders — which is now, according to a radio programme this morning, a very unpopular term — can assert their rights without disturbing the equilibrium at the heart of the education system. We do not seek a Stalinist, centralist control: we want to maximise how devolved responsibility can be exercised in the interests of pupils while maintaining a cohesive system and cohesive sectors.
The Chairperson:
The commission’s submission stresses the role of the employer as the person or body with the power; even more so than the issue of ownership. I noticed that your submission draws a distinction between the employer and the power of the trustees.
Under the current arrangement, the CCMS employs teachers and the Department employs non-teaching staff. If we take what the commission proposes to its logical conclusion, the commission would like the power that is the domain of the CCMS with regard to teachers given to individual boards of governors. That would lead to boards of governors being the employers of all non-teaching staff.
Is that not a step back from a more streamlined and efficient way of governing our schools? We will discuss clause 8 in a minute or two, but I want to tease that point out first. The submission rightly refers to attempts to achieve more streamlining. If we started with a clean sheet, we would not be starting from here, but to use a well-worn phrase — which the media may no longer find acceptable — we are where we are. The sectors, the institutions and the bodies govern and are responsible for education. However, do you not see that there could be a conflict between trying to achieve a more streamlined way of governing our schools and what is sought in your submission?
Dr McKeown:
At present, there is a wide variety of relationships between schools and their employees. The voluntary grammar sector employed everybody — it chose when to employ, when not to employ, when to promote and so on; whereas the CCMS used a comparatively light touch as an employing body. That ensured that a school followed correct procedures in the appointment of staff, but the boards of governors made the decisions. With the education and library board situation, people had to go through a board of governors and then pass on a number of names. We want to find the most effective method.
We are keen that as much responsibility as possible should be devolved locally to avoid having multiple tiers of filters through which matters must proceed. We seek effectiveness and efficiency, and it is possible to balance those. The last thing that we want to do is add more layers in attempting to remove the multiplicity of layers that we have at present.
The voluntary grammar sector has demonstrated its ability to manage its resources effectively and accountably.
If that model works for some schools, then as much authority as possible should be devolved to them. That should be done in the interests of good education, the raising of standards, and it should be done in such a way that the schools are accountable.
The Chairperson:
Some people might dispute that the CCMS could be described as having a light touch. I have never heard it described as such before.
Dr McKeown:
I was referring to appointments.
The Chairperson:
I appreciate that. I am sure that the CCMS will be able to rebut that comment when it appears before the Committee later. Bishop Walsh, do you want to comment?
Dr Walsh:
Bishop McKeown has summed up the position. The voluntary grammar sector, in which the schools are generally large and have plenty of resources, has shown that it has experience in that area; there are strong boards of governors and they have been well able to make successful appointments. Schools in the maintained sector have seen the value of the CCMS having a “light touch” in assisting them to make appointments.
Some small schools would not be in a position to make appointments without some assistance, and perhaps the support bodies could provide that. However, in general, schools should be given as much autonomy as possible.
The Chairperson:
I wish to speak personally, rather than on behalf of the Committee, about one of my concerns. I would like locally delegated autonomy, which has been the domain of the voluntary grammar schools, to become the domain of all schools. That autonomy has been the envy of the non-grammar schools, and Donal referred to the multiple layers involved in making teacher appointments and choosing one candidate from three. Such autonomy would, therefore, be good for our education system.
Clauses 3 and 8 are causing major concerns. Clause 8 states that the ESA may not lawfully refuse to put into effect any proper decision of a board of governors on employment matters. If model employment schemes and associated guidance were to clarify that and any other points for which you consider clarification to be necessary — and if those schemes were subject to full consultation with submitting authorities and, possibly, an independent appeals system or to regulation and control by the Assembly — would that remove some of the commission’s key concerns?
That issue was touched on at last week’s meeting, and the Committee asked the Department to provide “mechanisms” for how it could be done. If such mechanisms, structures, and regulation were added, would that help to address your concerns?
Mr John Gordon (Northern Ireland Commission for Catholic Education):
A pragmatic solution is required. A dispute mechanism would deal with the disputes that arise between boards of governors and the ESA. Disputes within particular schools are likely to be internal; they may relate to selection and recruitment or to disciplinary issues. This is about providing boards of governors with the right to deal with disputes as they deem fit.
Clause 8(2) does not specify who will determine what is lawful. If the ESA approves a scheme of employment and management for a particular school, it should adopt a hands-off approach thereafter, and the school should have the right to choose its own representation at any tribunal or court hearing. The ESA should indemnify the school, as suggested in clause 8(2), although clarification is required about any costs or damages that may be incurred in facilitating a school’s challenge and in dealing with a dispute.
It would be only if it were not possible to deal with a situation that there would be a conflict with the ESA. The ESA should not be directing schools in the minutiae of employment and disciplinary matters. The position on the ground at the moment is very similar. Schools have the power in the maintained sector — and, indeed, the voluntary grammar sector — to conduct and represent themselves at tribunals and courts. That position should continue.
The Chairperson:
To clarify the issue: are you saying that provision for appeals and other mechanisms would only resolve disputes between boards of governors and the ESA and would not address the fundamental problem?
Mr Gordon:
Yes.
The Chairperson:
So, there is a need to go further than appeals and mechanisms?
Mr Gordon:
I am not sure whether there is a need to go further. There should be clarification, either in primary or secondary legislation, that boards of governors would have the power. In fact, it is hinted in various papers from the Department and in some of the evidence that was given last week that there would be a clear autonomous employer role for boards of governors. The words “advocacy” and “representation” were used. If that were the case, boards of governors would, obviously, have the right to employ their own lawyers to represent them. Those lawyers, in turn, would represent not only the school but the ethos of the school in the manner in which a case is taken forward to a tribunal or court.
The Chairperson:
We always return to the same issue — the need for clarity. In an appeal situation, who would be the appellant and who would represent education? Last week, an eminent legal expert appeared before the Committee on behalf of the Governing Bodies Association; today, Mr Gordon is here. The Department is stating that the ESA may not lawfully refuse to put into effect any proper decision of a board of governors on employment matters. There is now, clearly, a conflict of legal opinion. At some stage, the Committee will have to determine which of the two legal positions it will accept, given all that it has heard. We will obviously have to return to this issue.
I do not want today’s session to be curtailed — if we run over time, so be it, provided that that time is valuable and well spent. I want the commission, the CCMS, and all organisations who submit oral evidence to have the confidence that the Committee will listen genuinely to the arguments. That is our statutory responsibility and duty, and we will carry it out fully.
Mr O’Dowd:
Your Eminence, Bishop Walsh and Bishop McKeown, you are very welcome. I have read your speech of last Thursday with great interest, and we have a responsibility to study that speech and consider the concerns that you raise in it, which are clearly deeply felt. Today, you have again outlined many of those concerns; and, hopefully, from this and other engagements, we will be able to clarify the issues and use our best offices to reassure where we can and build a common approach to the future provision of education.
The role that the commission and the CCMS have played in education is invaluable. You have provided an excellent education service through very difficult times in our collective history, and you are, justly, proud of that. We do not want to do anything to damage that provision or the relationship of that provision.
Many of the points that I wish to raise have been raised by the Chairperson, particularly in relation to the role of boards of governors. I think that this is an area in which clarity has to be given, either through further discussions or through some other mechanism. I do not read the situation in the same way as you are reading it — that the roles of boards of governors are being diminished, either in providing ethos or as the employment authority. Will you map out the differences between what is in place and what you see happening? John Gordon already touched on the legal provision and tribunals, but where do your concerns lie about the day-to-day running of schools and employment management?
Mr Gordon:
Obviously, there is a difference between the Catholic-maintained and voluntary grammar sectors. In the latter, boards of governors are the employers and have the right to hire, fire and to discipline teachers and pupils alike. Frequently, one finds that voluntary grammar schools have taken out insurance to protect themselves against the costs they might incur were they to end up in court or at an employment tribunal. Therefore, there is complete autonomy in that sector.
On a day-to-day basis in the Catholic-maintained sector, as Bishop McKeown has said, the CCMS has responsibility in statute for the scheme of management, which includes employment, selection and recruitment, and for assisting boards of governors to deal with schools. Schools have the day-to-day decision-making power on issues such as selection, recruitment, hiring, firing and discipline. The CCMS support system makes a valuable contribution to our schools, particularly — as Bishop Walsh indicated — the smaller ones.
The situation is different again in the controlled sector, where schools are subject to the education and library boards. Those boards have their own joint legal services, which provide representation for controlled schools at tribunals and in courts on a range of issues, particularly those relating to the schools estate. I assume that those joint legal services will cross over to the ESA, which will then also have its own in-house legal team.
Mr O’Dowd:
As the Chairperson said, we have had three different legal interpretations. That is the nature of legal matters, which is why there are so many solicitors and barristers — we are fortunate to have so many of them. Therefore, the Committee has to do its homework to examine those opinions. However, the ESA is not bringing forward any new employment legislation; it will only interpret and adapt what currently exists. Is that a fair statement?
Mr Gordon:
That leads to the crucial statement: who determines what is lawful?
Mr O’Dowd:
It would be a tribunal or a judge.
Mr Gordon:
If one is providing an autonomous role for boards of governors, then it they who should determine what is lawful, not the ESA.
Mr O’Dowd:
In your earlier comments to the Chairperson, you said that the ESA should legally indemnify boards of governors. In such circumstances, a board of governors, as an autonomous unit, would be saying that its interpretation of the law is correct and that it is prepared for its decisions to be challenged in court. Is that what you are saying?
Mr Gordon:
Yes; essentially, boards of governors should be given the power to make decisions. That is what happens on a day-to-day basis at the moment. Provided that a board of governors acts responsibly, within the law, and not recklessly, it is indemnified by the relevant education and library board for any decisions that it takes. The safeguard in that is what is referred to in clause 8(2); that boards of governors have a scheme of management and employment that they are asked to adhere to on issues such as selection and recruitment and that that scheme of management and employment respects and enforces current equality legislation.
Nothing is black and white when it comes to selection and recruitment, because the basis and nature of applications can be contested. The board of governors that made the decision in the first instance must determine whether allegations made by an applicant or complainant are valid. It should, subsequently, be afforded an opportunity to defend its decision-making power rather than having the ESA simply overriding it. At present, education and library boards do not deal with matters in that way, and the process should remain as it is.
Mr O’Dowd:
However, a defence could be based only on the current law; is that right?
Mr Gordon:
That is correct.
The Chairperson:
Apart from the veto, or exemption, on recruitment, is the commission seeking any other exemptions?
Mr Gordon:
No. The schools will adhere to the current equality legislation.
Mr D Bradley:
Good morning, Your Eminence and team.
Autonomy is one of the crucial concepts in this matter, and your paper outlines your support for maximum autonomy. The Department has a different concept, which it calls maximum supported autonomy. Your proposal that employment powers be vested in boards of governors is quite radical, because the view expressed to date is that many of them do not have the capacity to carry that responsibility. Therefore, until now, sectoral support from the CCMS has been required to support and advise boards of governors on employment issues, which are, as we all know, a potential minefield.
To date, the concept of maximum supported autonomy has operated in the maintained sector. However, you talked today about placing that burden of responsibility on schools, and Bishop Walsh mentioned that some of the smaller schools would not be able to deal with employment matters without further support. Are you moving towards the Department’s position on supported autonomy?
That leads to the question: from where would that support, if required, come? The evidence that the Committee has received so far is that the ESA would encourage schools to be as autonomous as possible while supporting them when needed. Bishop Walsh suggested that the new emerging sectoral body, or bodies, should provide that support. Paragraph 7 of your paper states that you envisage a need for:
“Adequate structures of support, co-ordination and solidity for each education sector in Northern Ireland.”
How far should that support extend, and to what extent should it be provided for in statute?
Dr McKeown:
I will consider the question in the broad sense, and perhaps John will talk about any legal technicalities. We all recognise that having a multiplicity of education bodies was not the most efficient and effective way of administering education. To ensure that best practice can continue, we must take into account the current situation in which some schools have experienced a huge amount of autonomy and in which others accept that they need a great deal of support.
We are not hung up on individual phrases as long as the outcomes benefit young people, serve the common good and work in the interests of reconciliation. From the information in the consultation paper and the advice that the Committee received from the Department in early January 2009, it is quite clear that the role of the sectoral body would be, primarily, to provide advisory, representational and advocacy services, but not front line services. We are not looking for a body to provide those front line services.
If a school can get all the advice that it needs about correct procedures from the ESA, then that is fine; as long as the school is in a position to make its own decisions as much as possible. The CCMS structure seemed to have provided for that by outlining what schools should do and supporting that work, while resting all decisions in the hands of schools.
It seems that we want to take the range of sectors and maximise the best that is currently available in the interests of all. It is important to note that in the review of public administration the most publicly administered schools were not necessarily the most successful. That was not necessarily the most successful way to get the best outcomes. Therefore, the question is how can we build on what is already good in our system?
Mr Gordon:
The commission wishes to see the provision of sectoral support — not just to the Catholic sector but to all sectors — reflected in the legislation. It is quite extraordinary that the Catholic sector — the largest sector and provider of education to children in Northern Ireland — is not supported and maintained in the legislation. Yet, I note that the Bill does not seek to repeal article 64 of the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989. Paragraph 1 of article 64 states that:
“It will be the duty of the Department to encourage and facilitate to development of integrated education”.
That article remains. In addition, Irish-medium education, by virtue of article 89 of the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, is also being retained. Therefore, two smaller sectors within education are, in fact, getting statutory encouragement and support yet the largest educational sector is not receiving such support in the Education Bill.
The Chairperson:
Following on from that point, the Department, in its perceived wisdom, says that it is introducing the Education Bill to get a more streamlined and equitable system of governance. I determine from your comments that we will not have such a system because two sectors have a position of prominence over and above the other sectors because of article 64 of the 1989 Order and article 89 of the 1998 Order.
Mr Gordon:
The Department has a statutory obligation to encourage and facilitate the development of Irish-medium education and integrated education. The Department has recognised that sectoral support is required not just for those sectors and the Catholic sector, but for the controlled sector too. The Cardinal has alluded to the fact that the commission believes that that support should be extended to all sectors and representatives of the various sectors within education and should be reflected in the legislation.
Sister Eithne Woulfe (Northern Ireland Commission for Catholic Education):
I will make a couple of important points about statutory obligations. There is a level of mutual accountability once something is part of a statutory instrument. In this case, education is a common good. Therefore, support services for whatever sectors must provide value for the common good. There should be a mechanism in place to ensure accountability and transparency, and ensure that they are not simply part of a private enterprise. We are talking about public moneys and about something that provides a service to the people.
One of the things that the CCMS has proven, as has research in other jurisdictions, is that ethos adds value. Every group of schools has an ethos, and it is important that, somehow or other, in the context of diversity, each distinctive ethos is promoted — not as segregation, but as some sort of healthy mutuality. It is therefore important that there should be some process of inspection to determine how those support services add value to the education experience of young people, because, ultimately, that is the bottom line.
Mrs M Bradley:
Good morning, Your Eminence, and everyone. In your submission you state that the sectoral support bodies should have a role in raising standards, and that that is the Department’s rationale for establishing the ESA. Is there a danger that, with the ESA and a number of other bodies involved in raising standards, we may have a case of “too many cooks”, and standards may suffer as a result?
Dr McKeown:
You are quite right in putting your finger on the need to raise standards. Too many young people are being failed by the current system, despite the wonderful efforts of so many schools and teachers. There is a balance to be struck between ensuring that we have a streamlined system and maximising the ability of schools locally — to bring in local governors, to work with people to develop links with local enterprises and businesses, and all of that sort of thing, in the interests of quality outcomes.
Outcomes are not simply the result of inputs — they arise from an atmosphere, a sense that, yes, we can do it, and a sense of belonging and identity. I often quote one of our local parish priests in Belfast who says that in his parish, male life expectancy is now 50. There is a shocking level of people being failed by the system, and just having good teachers and good governors is part of the process of dealing with that.
We are looking for what will actually deliver on the ground in particular parts of Belfast or the rest of the country. If that costs appreciable amounts of money, we have to ask whether it is worth investing whatever it takes in order to bring up that tail of young people who are being failed by society. They are falling into addictions, self-harm, depression, and all of those things. We have to ensure that their needs are a priority for us, and that we put in place a system that will ensure quality outcomes, especially for those with the biggest needs.
Many of us would have done well in a hedge school. Our emphasis has to be on what is going to help those who most need support, not just what will look well on a piece of paper as a nice flow diagram. Of course, there has to be accountability and an organised system, but it is important that that is biased in favour of those who have most needs, of one sort or another.
We in the Catholic sector are certainly not looking for any form of unilateral declaration of independence — we are looking to maximise outcomes for everybody, to ensure that reconciliation is a key part of what we do, and to serve the common good. Being a very large sector is not just a privilege, it is also a huge responsibility. We have to ensure that the legislation ensures outcomes, particularly for those who have the greatest needs — there are too many of those in our society at the present time. The taxpayer will pay for the problems that arise from that into the future.
Dr Walsh:
In response to Mrs Bradley, it is important that we all recognise the importance of sectoral support bodies, as the Department of Education has done. That is accepted, and we are very pleased about that. As the Cardinal said, in policy paper 21 the roles and functions were spelt out quite clearly, and there is no question of duplicating the roles and functions of the ESA. It is important that the roles and functions of support bodies should be enshrined and made clear in legislation. That is the kind of clarity that we need.
There is one point following from that, which Bishop McKeown has mentioned — we all have to be accountable. It is very important that if a particular support body is obliged to support schools in its sector, the schools are obliged to accept and consult with that support body.
That is also important. Our submission says that schools must have due regard to the ESA’s advice as they would with the sectoral body. I hope that that clarifies our position.
Sister Woulfe:
I want to reinforce Bishop Walsh’s comments. There are, probably, three key issues. First, support bodies should be slimline and should not duplicate services that are provided by other bodies. Secondly, as the Chairperson outlined in his introductory remarks, there is a need for clarity, and sometimes the devil is in the detail. Thirdly, there must be clarity in the mediation of interests and accountability, and that important issue should be included in statute. I hope that we will not have too many cooks but will have a richer broth. [Laughter.]
Mr Lunn:
Good morning, Your Eminence. Good morning, Bishops. The word “ethos” must be the most used word in this morning’s discussions. If I thought that any of the Bill’s provisions posed a genuine threat to your right to maintain a Catholic ethos in your schools — or to the perceived ethos of voluntary grammars — I would oppose it. However, I see no such threat.
You have stressed the critical link between employment and ethos, and the employment of teachers is of primary concern to you. I am sorry to revisit old ground, but your boards of governors do not employ your teachers. However, paragraph 9 of your submission states:
“NICCE wants to make it clear, in the strongest possible terms, that it regards the right of Boards of Governors of Schools to be the legal employer … as critical to the future provision of schools of a particular ethos and defining character”.
That has not been the case to date. An arm’s-length body — the CCMS — has employed teachers, and the ESA will now do so.
I do not know whether the CCMS has a light touch or not, and neither do I know whether the ESA will have a light touch or not; but I do know what the Bill says. Under its provisions, only boards of governors can decide which staff to appoint. That is included in the departmental response; it could not be clearer.
An eminent QC who attended the Committee last week on behalf of the GBA made a similar point. However, no matter how eminent he was, he did not convince me that a problem exists. In fact, he gave one ridiculous example — I will not bore you with it — concerning Irish-medium schools. How do you explain your desire to change the existing system from the CCMS being the employer to individual schools, rather than the ESA, being the employer? Moreover, will you reiterate your problems with the appointment of community governors to schools, where the ESA must, by law, consult trustees? I do not understand your problem with that.
Mr John Gordon (Northern Ireland Commission for Catholic Education):
Mr Lunn asked why we want boards of governors rather than the ESA to take decisions. The CCMS shared, fostered and developed the aspiration of Catholic ethos. As Bishop Walsh said, it had an overarching statutory role, which is outlined in the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989. The Bill proposes the abolition of the CCMS, but no substitute has been proposed.
You are quite right: if boards of governors have the right to hire and fire teachers and to deal with disciplinary matters, what happens when a legal challenge is made to their decision making? Who represents the board of governors? Is the matter kicked upstairs to the ESA, which would mean that a Government secular body would represent the interests of a school with a particular ethos to foster? It is more appropriate that boards of governors have that power and that they deal with decision making and contested issues themselves.
In the current situation, the CCMS was at idem with any board of governors that it represented. To my knowledge, there is no record of any differences of opinion or difficulties between a board of governors and the CCMS or in a board of governors following advice from the CCMS. The sectoral support body that is envisaged and which we would like to see enshrined in the legislation would perform a similar, albeit reduced, support role in those circumstances.
Dr Brady:
Teachers are vital to the ethos of a school. I do not know whether the CCMS had a light touch or a heavy touch, but we have the impression that it had a nearer touch than the Department. That is vital.
Mr Lunn:
The witnesses would know better than I whether it had a light touch or a heavy touch.
Dr McKeown:
Trevor highlighted the question of community governors. Bishop Walsh made it clear that the corporate body of a board of governors should have some agreed vision for the future. It would be difficult for an integrated school to have someone on its board of governors who opposed the school’s philosophy. It would be difficult for an Irish-medium bunscoil or meánscoil to have a governor who was not really all that fussed about what that school was trying to achieve.
There should be adequate public representation on boards of governors, but cohesiveness is needed on agreed broad principles about what the school wants to attain. Due note should be taken that there should be some consonance between publicly appointed governors and the ethos of the school. The last thing that we want is boards of governors to be in constant conflict over all sorts of things.
That does not mean that the trustees would have to vet appointments, but those who agree to serve on the board of governors of a controlled, voluntary, or any other school, should at least be committed to the broad vision of that school. We are trying to offer leadership, as trustees in the Catholic sector, on some very current issues. It is important that governors are committed to their school, and it is also important to recognise that the trustees have a role in the overall direction in the sector. That must be recognised; otherwise we end up with governors fighting one another instead of running the school. We want to avoid that in all circumstances.
Mr Lunn:
Why would the ESA, in consultation with the trustees, want to appoint a governor who did not respect the ethos of a school? The question seems almost hypothetical; but why would that be a problem?
Dr Walsh:
Insofar as one can speak about one’s personal experience, it has not been a problem before now. It seems that there has been proper consultation in the voluntary grammar sector and in the maintained sector; we just want to ensure that that will continue. As the Department pointed out, it is included in schedules 5 and 6 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, and it remains the case.
We would like the word “consult” to be strengthened by a phrase such as “in consultation with” so that there is genuine consultation. So far, that has taken place, but there is no guarantee that the ESA may interpret consulting in the same way. It may regard consultation as simply phoning up and providing two names.
Mr Lunn:
The Department appeared to think that that small change in the wording would change the emphasis of the Bill, although I cannot see it myself. I do not disagree with the small change that you propose.
I am pleased that paragraph 25 of your submission is headed “Membership of the ESA”; I have finally found someone who agrees with me. I am slightly worried. [Laughter.]
Dr Walsh:
We did not consult you, did we?
Mr Lunn:
The proposal that the ESA have a majority of local councillors on its board fills me with dread. Paragraph 25 of your submission states:
“In NICCE our experience of the contribution of elected representatives on such bodies has generally been positive”.
I will not go into my thoughts on that, but “generally” means that sometimes it has not been positive, and the current situation of the South Eastern Education and Library Board might provide a clue about why I say that.
Although you have not been specific about what you would like to see, can I take it that you would still like to see local councillor representation on the ESA board but not as a majority — or even close to a majority? Is that a fair summation of what you think?
Dr Walsh:
We simply ask for a better balance. It is important that the people who run the ESA will be appointed not simply because they happen to be councillors — or anything else — but because they have a specific contribution to make to educational thought. The ESA should be an educational body, and we are asking for that balance to be struck.
Dr McKeown:
Our education system has survived difficult years — with schools often being havens of calm in the midst of a very troubled society. Educationalists have done a reasonably good job of running our education system, and there is concern that non-educational issues might, on some occasions — a minority of occasions — interfere excessively in the decision-making process.
I understand that a majority of the ESA board must be councillors — which is a reasonable, if small, pool from which to draw — because the Assembly will be responsible for passing legislation. It would be inappropriate for the body that passes legislation to be involved in the implementation thereof. We are expressing our concerns. Knowing the nature of Northern Ireland, sometimes political priorities might get in the way of what educationalists might see as other, more important, priorities.
Mr Lunn:
I am glad that you raised it in your submission, as we have been able to put it on the record.
The Chairperson:
I am conscious that we are running over time. However, I want to ensure that everybody has the opportunity to raise issues that concern them. Nevertheless, I ask members to be conscious of time, because we still have a considerable amount of work to get through.
Before we move on, I want to raise a point about community governors. What is the definition of community? That was not picked up in your submission. How would we define the local community? Is it the faith-based, the geographical or the social community? That needs clarity, and we need more work on the provisions for community governors in clause 35, as they are very broad and should be more defined.
Mr Poots:
Just to clarify, the South Eastern Education and Library Board was a quango — 60% of which were not public representatives — that got itself into huge debt, and public representatives stood against cutting special needs provision. We are in this mess because of a quango of appointees, not because of public representatives.
Bishops, you set out your stall in article 7a of your submission quite clearly on a faith-based education, which you say is supported by the European Convention on Human Rights.
It appears to me that there is an inference inherent throughout your submission that the legislation is moving away from your right to provide a faith-based education and that the ESA will undermine your position.
Dr McKeown:
We are raising concerns about the legislation’s ability to ensure that, as a sector, we can act in a cohesive manner. The Bain Report of 2006 recommended that sectoral bodies be supported, particularly for planning. The ability to bring schools together — not to knock heads together but to recognise that there are overriding priorities other than local priorities — is very important in the context of the demographic downturn. If we individualise schools excessively, all sorts of influences can become involved in deciding what a school will do, because a short-term action — for example, for the lifespan of a board of governors — seems to be the best way forward.
I go to every monthly meeting of the TRC; I am an agenda item every time, because there is a recognition of the need to ensure that faith-based education — whatever that might mean in future — continues to be accessible. As someone said, in future the problem will not be so much religious difference as religious indifference. The problem with the present system is that, in many ways, there are no secular schools for those who would like an avowedly secular education.
In 20 years’ time, there will be a major reshaping of the alliances and allegiances of the education system in Northern Ireland. We are working with the transferors to ensure parents’ right to have a faith-based education system in Northern Ireland that is in no way damaged by legislation, changes or streamlining. Sectoral bodies must have the right to negotiate and to work together to create new types of schools. If we centralise and individualise schools excessively, we will end up with many small empires without the cohesion of the vision and the value that ethos brings. We are looking for a balance to ensure that faith-based education will be an option for as many people as want to take advantage of it in 20 years’ time.
Mr Poots:
Would you accept the argument that the Bill gives schools the right to operate according to their own ethos and practices and brings together various streams in the overall delivery of education under the ESA? The ESA is the paymaster, and he who pays the piper calls the tune.
Dr McKeown:
I have no problem with that. However, it is important to recognise what has enabled schools here to deliver the highest quality of education: the ability of individuals and sectors to work together. Fifty-seven per cent of pupils in Northern Ireland do not go to controlled schools; that, as the Chairperson said, is where we are starting from. We are looking for something that delivers outcomes — I keep repeating that — and which will allow those who wish to choose faith-based education in an increasingly secular society to do so. It is possible to ensure streamlining, efficiency and effectiveness within such a system. The danger is that we end up with something that looks well on a flow chart but which does not deliver.
The ability to harness local energy and enthusiasm in a group of schools is very important, as is area-based planning, which the Bain Report was strong on and in which we are at present involved. A balance can be struck. However, excessive paring may not deliver the outcomes that we all passionately want for our schools.
Mr Poots:
I take it that the ethos for which you argue and which you support and the autonomy for that ethos is something that you would want for the voluntary grammar sector as well.
Dr McKeown:
The voluntary grammar sector has a range of —
Mr Poots:
I mean that you would not seek something for your own sector that you would not seek for another sector.
Dr McKeown:
We have said that clearly. We have a clear set of documents about the Catholic ethos. The voluntary grammar sector is unified in that it has a particular status in legislation, but there is no agreed ethos for voluntary grammar schools, as far as I am aware. As a former principal of one, I was not conscious of that.
They have a particular interest and structures, but I do not think that there is an agreed ethos for voluntary grammar schools, except in a comparatively limited sense. I think that we have a much broader sense of ethos; however, it is important that those groups of schools and individual schools have the right to be supported in gathering together where they have common interests, because it is all directed towards delivering quality outcomes.
Mr Poots:
I take it, then, that you would envisage voluntary grammar schools being in existence for some time to come.
Dr McKeown:
They are independent schools. What contribution they make to society and what role they play in the education system is a different matter, but they exist as individual schools, and their autonomy is precious to them and they have every right to maintain it.
Sister Woulfe:
Mr Poots argued that the paymaster was the architect-in-chief of a school. The paymaster is responsible for the distribution of the public purse on behalf of the taxpayer, but that does not mean that the paymaster is the arbiter or the creator of the profile of school provision or ethos in a democracy. Democracy seeks to reflect the diversity of society, and that is the purpose of some of the changes. The other purpose — to which we subscribe in paragraph 8 of our submission — is that the Education Bill seeks to establish:
“a more streamlined, coherent and efficient system of education”.
That is the core. Everyone here wants an efficient, coherent education system that is not just value for money but also value for the young people in the education system. That does not mean one size fits all, but it places an obligation on the legislation and on the ESA, within its powers, to clarify the role of the constituent bodies and what demands are to be made of them so that some of them do not become privileged.
The voluntary principle of that devolution is particularly important, whether schools remain voluntary grammar or another kind of school.
Mr Poots:
Bishop McKeown, in response to an earlier question, suggested that we need to provide “whatever it takes” to deal with the educational tail, but we do not have “whatever it takes”. Of a budget of £9 billion, education takes about £2 billion. We do not have much flexibility to provide “whatever it takes”.
Would you agree that you have a role to play in ensuring that education is provided more efficiently and at a lower cost-base than at present, given the diverse range of education that it is provided? Should you not co-operate fully to deliver education more efficiently so that more resources go to the youngsters who need them most? Should education not be about children first and foremost rather than about ethos or faiths or anything else?
Mr Gordon:
Following up on Mr Poots’s last point, and I am sure that Mr Flanagan will visit this —
The Chairperson:
He is a soft touch. [Laughter.]
Mr Gordon:
The Catholic sector has, vis-à-vis the education and library boards, provided value for money in representation and education. To return to the initial question, the commission believes that the Education Bill does not go far enough in certain areas. From answers to questions, from the Department’s evidence to the Committee last week, from the Bain Report and the RPA papers, it is clear that sectoral support bodies are necessary.
Since that is the case, and since sectoral bodies represent all sectors in education, why have they not been included in the Education Bill? It makes more sense to include them in it, as you will obtain the trust and confidence not just of the commission but of the Governing Bodies Association and the other sectors that have given evidence to the Committee.
Dr Walsh:
Mr Poots spoke about children and ethos, among other things, and since he might have used a throwaway phrase I do not want to quote him exactly. However, putting children’s education first and maintaining ethos do not exclude each other. It is important that children are educated in a school, not in a vacuum or even in a hedge school — even though I know that Dr McKeown would have prospered at one.
Children are educated in schools that have a certain thrust and character, and it is those factors that provide good education in a sector; therefore, they should not be separated out, Mr Poots. Ethos is an important factor in the good education of children, and for us, children are important. We have said that all along, and it is good that children are beginning to take centre stage in the education process. That is what is good for children.
Mr Poots:
The reality is that many schools are exclusive.
Dr Walsh:
That is another issue and not quite ad rem to this discussion.
Mr McCausland:
I have three questions. First, as regards governors and their appointment, you said that at present the Department of Education and the education and library boards, in consultation with the trustees, appoint governors. When I sat on an education and library board school management committee, we were given a list of people who had been proposed as governors, and that list was essentially rubber-stamped. I assume that that list came from the CCMS. Why will it be any different under a new regime?
Dr Walsh:
That is unknown. It has always been a question of names being suggested backwards and forwards; that is the kind of good consultation that we require.
Mr McCausland:
In my experience, there was no backwards and forwards; it was simply a case of presenting a list to a board of governors to rubber-stamp.
Dr Walsh:
Perhaps that was the fault of the education and library board.
Mr McCausland:
There was mention that people from the Protestant community work for the CCMS. However, how many people from the Protestant community sit on the boards of governors of Catholic maintained schools?
Dr Walsh:
I do not know whether we can answer that question. If the Department of Education suggested a person for the board of one of our schools who was not of our faith but who was fully in tune with the ethos of the school and who was clearly a good educationalist, we would have no problem.
Dr Brady:
That question could be answered in the Committee’s session with the CCMS.
Dr McKeown:
I have worked with people from the Protestant and unionist community who were passionate members of boards of governors; that is my experience, and I am sure that it applies in other schools.
Mr McCausland:
It would be useful to know.
Secondly, you said that if too many councillors were members of the board of the ESA, non-educational issues could be introduced and people could follow political priorities. No one in Northern Ireland is non-political; I have never found such a person. Everyone comes with some political agenda, whether they sit on a board as a politician or as a representative of some other sector. What sort of political issues do you see people pursuing? I find that difficult to envisage.
Dr McKeown:
A major element is the planning of the schools estate — the development of new schools and amalgamations. We all have agendas. Inevitably, the agenda of a politician is to be elected, which is a very real part of the important role that political representatives play. I hope that decisions are taken that are not in the interests of people who depend on votes or who want to play to the tune of particular local groups — and I hope that that is the case within the CCMS. Our broad point is that we should ensure that pure, non-election-based agendas are always the dominant ones.
Mr McCausland:
If I picked you up right, you are saying that you saw people pursuing political priorities and agendas on estate planning. Can you fill that out a bit more?
Dr McKeown:
As someone who was never in the Belfast Education and Library Board (BELB), Balmoral High School springs to mind as an example of when a school is put in a place where it is not needed in the long term. We are simply saying that it is important to ensure that the big picture is always kept in mind, not just the picture for the next four or five years.
Mr McCausland:
Should the councillors on the board of the ESA reflect the political community? Likewise, should the other members on the board reflect the composition of the wider community?
Dr McKeown:
How representatives are picked will be a matter for the Assembly — the d’Hondt system seems to be valid everywhere. We are also aware that the Education Bill, and certainly its associated documentation, talks about local committees. The last thing that we want is a Balkanisation of education due to the predominance of one community in particular areas. We are looking for a system that will serve the common good. Democracy has to be exercised on the ground. However, we know from our society that there is a danger of Balkanisation, which we want to avoid.
Mr McCausland:
There was mention in passing to the current obligation to encourage and facilitate the Irish-medium and integrated sectors. What is your view on equality across the education sectors? Should it not be the responsibility of the state to encourage and facilitate all sectors, rather than giving what might be perceived as special attention to two sectors?
Dr McKeown:
In 1989, the Irish-medium sector was miniscule and the integrated sector was also small. At that time, it was right to ensure that such small sectors were given encouragement. Whether such encouragement is required to the same extent 20 years on is another thing. John Gordon was saying that at least those two sectors are recognised on the face of legislation — the end of the CCMS will mean that there is no recognition of the Catholic-maintained sector anywhere on the face of legislation.
Dr Brady:
In our presentation, we made clear our respect for diversity, and we said that that should be reflected in legislation and provision.
Mr McCausland:
If one goes down the road of saying that all sectors should be treated on the basis of equality, then giving a particular commitment to facilitate and encourage one sector will draw a difference. It would be helpful to ascertain views on that from the various people who give evidence to us on the Bill. Do you favour a more general commitment that the state should be responsible for encouraging and facilitating all sectors?
Dr McKeown:
I talked to the transferors at the meeting on Monday. They are concerned about how they can play an important role in developing the current ethos of the schools in which they are heavily involved and to which they have made a huge commitment. Some will regard education supply as being divided, but we have produced a system that is, in global terms, good in many ways. The devolution to, and subsequent strength of, particular sectors is a source of strength, rather than being something of which we should rid ourselves.
Miss McIlveen:
Having listened carefully to what you have said and having read your submission, my impression is that you feel under threat from the ESA. What discussions have you had with the Department about your concerns and what was its response?
Dr Walsh:
For the past number of years, there has been ongoing communication with senior officials in the Department and we raised our concerns, which focus on employment issues. The Department’s legal advisers gave their opinion; our adviser, Mr Gordon, also has a view, and, as was strongly hinted, the Governing Bodies Association also brought an adviser to the Committee.
Having listened to today’s discussion, legal matters and the interpretation of law are becoming core issues. Is the Committee thinking about bringing some of the lawyers together, rather than hearing one view and then another? Perhaps the lawyers could tease out the legal issues in the presence of the Committee — is that too much to ask? Perhaps some members are lawyers.
The Chairperson:
I do not want to be a referee at that meeting.
Mr McCausland:
It would be an expensive meeting.
Dr Walsh:
We would ask Mr Gordon not to charge a fee.
The Chairperson:
Is that the basis on which he is here today? Perhaps I should not ask such questions.
Miss McIlveen:
We could speak all day about ethos, and so forth; but, as someone who does not come from the same faith, I find it difficult to understand its importance. However, let us consider other models, particularly in Scotland, where schools are owned by the state but have maintained their Catholic faith and ethos. Have you spoken to your counterparts there or in other jurisdictions?
Sister Woulfe:
Yes.
Miss McIlveen:
Will you elaborate?
Dr McKeown:
We meet the Scottish Catholic Education Service and their counterparts in England and Wales every year. In addition, we are part of a much bigger network of providers of Catholic schools throughout Europe. We are involved in ongoing dialogue, not only to maintain our existing system but to determine the best practical ways forward. The Scottish model provides one perspective, and our submission reflects that the right of minority groups of schools to continue is guaranteed in legislation in various parts of these islands. We want to ensure that that continues to be the case here, because we wish to serve the common good, and the examination results that we produce demonstrate that we are doing so.
Miss McIlveen:
From your written submission and what you have said today, I get the impression that you simply want to hold on to what you have and perhaps gain a bit more if you can during the period of transition, rather than being more progressive and considering what might be better for the wider Northern Ireland.
Sister Woulfe:
With respect, Miss McIlveen, your comment misses the point. The issue is one of a commitment to providing education in Northern Ireland for all young people. However, there is also the recognition and commitment to offer options within that provision. That is part of the diversity. For some people, their vision of education contains certain nuances. People want to bring up their children in a particular cultural environment, and for many, that has a religious dimension, whereas for others it does not. I am thinking not only of Northern Ireland, but of Europe when I say that. We all recognise that we are living in a time of huge and rapid transition on this island.
It is not about grabbing what one can, so to speak; it is about offering something for the common good in schools that promote an ethos with a particular vision of, and purpose in, life. These schools are open to all, not just to children whose families are from the Catholic tradition. They are open to anyone who wishes to participate in them. It is also open to participating in communities of learning, which are very much part of the emerging context in this part of the island.
You asked whether we have studied what is happening in Catholic schools in other parts of the world. We have. You mentioned the Scottish model, which arose from early twentieth-century legislation. In recent times, there has been significant legislation in England and Wales. Furthermore, legislators in France, Belgium, Holland, Spain and Italy have worked on the matter, and, as well as having state systems, those countries have state-funded diverse education systems.
The place of religion in those countries varies according to the jurisdiction. However, a religious ethos is not just founded on the faith dimension, nor is it just about the period of worship; it informs how things, such as discipline, are done. There is a dialogue between faith and culture; it is not about indoctrination, because education is fundamentally not about indoctrination; it is about enabling people to be critical thinkers at an appropriate age. For example, four-year olds are not critical thinkers in the same way as 24-year olds.
There are different forms of education, and a one-size-fits-all system would do nothing for society. In any kind of democracy, one must allow for diverse voices, and that is partly why we are here. Although we represent Catholic interests, we do not deny the value of other interests as education providers — we endorse them. We mentioned the controlled sector, the Irish-medium sector, the integrated sector and the transferors, and we acknowledge the value of them all. In some ways, we recognise the value of them working alone; however, in other ways, we see the value of them working together, and that is happening. That is why support is required for each sector here, and, in order to ensure that that support is healthy and accountable, it must be integrated in legislation.
The Chairperson:
Roman Catholic schools became part of the state system in Scotland in 1926, and that was followed by the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 and so on. In light of that, do you believe that the ethos of those schools was diminished in any way? Further to the point raised by Michelle McIlveen, I am interested in the comments in your submission about explicit legal recognition in other jurisdictions with respect to the critical link between employment and ethos. Do you believe that the ethos of Roman Catholic schools was diminished in any way, because that brings us back to the fundamental issue with which we started — employment fears? Last Thursday in Dungannon, the Cardinal publicly stated his concerns about preserving the ethos of schools.
Sister Woulf:
I think you are talking about a question of principle. The Scottish model has worked well.
The Chairperson:
That is something that we would be interested to see.
Sister Woulf:
I have here ‘Religion, Education & the Law: A Comparative Approach’, which some of you might find interesting.
The Chairperson:
I shall delegate Nelson McCausland to read that and report back next week. [Laughter.]
Finally, Cardinal Brady said something about which I wish to ask a question. I apologise to the other witnesses about the way that the session has run on; however, it is vital that we have this discussion. In the Cardinal’s opening remarks, he said that clause 3 is unacceptable. If we were not able to convince the Department and the Minister to make changes that could satisfy the concerns that have been raised today and those that were raised with us last week by the GBA, what would the effect be? It might be difficult to answer that, but given that you said that clause 3 was unacceptable —
Dr Brady:
It is unacceptable in its present form.
The Chairperson:
Yes.
Dr Brady:
Today’s meeting gives us cause for hope that by having genuine listening, as you said, and a profitable and fruitful exchange of views, we will arrive at a situation in which the legislation is acceptable. That is the point of the exercise, but we will cross that bridge when we come to it.
The Chairperson:
I thank you and your delegation, Cardinal. You are welcome to stay while we hear from the representatives of the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS).
Dr Brady:
I thank you and the Committee for listening genuinely.
The Chairperson:
If members agree, I propose that, because of time constraints, we postpone the presentation from the departmental officials, if they will be kind enough to accede to that request. It is not that I am putting them in the sin bin — I am very conscious of that. We are also due to have a very important presentation from the Education and Training Inspectorate.
Mr O’Dowd:
I am conscious that the media are interested in the Department’s presentation. Is it possible, if the officials’ attendance is to be postponed, to make the relevant documents public?
The Chairperson:
I meant to say to the Cardinal’s delegation before they left the table that we have a departmental response to their submission and that we will make that available to both delegations and the press, because it is now in the public domain. Are members content with course of action?
Members indicated assent.
The Chairperson:
I apologise to the departmental officials about that. I welcome Bishop McAreavey, Mr Donal Flanagan and his team. We are looking forward to a soft touch from the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS). You have been at the centre of some jesting this morning, but I hope that it was all taken in good humour. There is a great deal of commonality on many of the issues that have been raised. I ask you to make your presentation, after which members will have an opportunity to ask questions.
Most Reverend John McAreavey, Bishop of Dromore (Council for Catholic Maintained Schools):
Thank you, Chairperson. We appreciate having the opportunity to address the Committee, and we hope that we will be able to bring some clarity to the issues that have already been discussed this morning.
I will introduce the members of our delegation. Mr Donal Flanagan is the chief executive of CCMS; Mr Jim Clarke is the deputy chief executive, and Ms La’Verne Montgomery is the head of human resources and corporate services.
It is the case that we are in broad agreement with the views expressed by the trustees, both in their written submission and oral evidence. The views of the CCMS come from more direct hands-on experience than that of bishops or trustees, who, in the nature of things, are a little bit more removed from the classroom and day-to-day administration of schools. It is from that experience that our contribution will be made.
My colleagues, as you probably know, or will discover, are well able to speak for themselves. Whether they take a gentle touch or not, as a trustee and chair of the council of the CCMS, I think that they have acted over the years as they believed necessary and appropriate. By and large, that has been through influence and in trying to be supportive.
Of course, as with any organisation, there were times and situations in which fairly decisive action was judged necessary. History will show that such actions were taken for the benefit of schools, teachers and pupils. I will hand over to Jim Clarke, who will make the main presentation.
Mr Jim Clarke (Council for Catholic Maintained Schools):
As a regional body, the CCMS agrees with the RPA proposals and agrees that they have the potential to deliver a more coherent and efficient support and administrative framework for education. However, centralised administration should not mean centralised control.
The Bill is incomplete and lacks clarity. Those facts make it difficult for the CCMS to develop a full understanding of the intentions and implications at this time. At present, we do not have sight of the second Bill. Therefore, proposals on matters such as accountable autonomy, area-based planning and governance are not available to us. Members will have noted from the previous conversation that much of the debate is about how accountable autonomy will look and how it will operate.
Furthermore, we are confused about the Bill’s lack of clarity on employment, the selection of community governors and the roles and responsibilities of sectoral support bodies. The CCMS believes that the purpose of schools should be to provide a high-quality education in which parents and pupils can have confidence. It should be an education system that is clearly linked to Northern Ireland’s emerging economy and changing society. In order to ensure that that happens, all sectors should have access to the range of supports that they need, bearing in mind — as Mr Poots might remind us — the costs.
I will focus on three main areas: the need for clarity on the roles of the education and skills authority and boards of governors in the employment of teachers; the importance of the need for clarity on the roles and responsibilities of sectoral support bodies, and their relationship to the ESA and schools’ boards of governors; and, the critical area of raising standards. We are happy to answer questions on other aspects of our evidence.
The first issue is the role of the ESA and boards of governors in the employment of teachers. The council is anxious to secure that there is clarity in the legislation and associated guidance in order to ensure equality, whereby each sector must provide schools that reflect parents’ desire for a particular educational ethos — be it Catholic, other faith-based, integrated, secular or Irish-medium. At present, there is confusion in the language of the Bill. References to the “employing authority” or “employer” seem to relate only to ESA’s role. Indeed, those terms are almost interchangeable in the Bill.
There is no clear statement on the roles that will be discharged by boards of governors, and there is no umbrella terminology to describe what those roles might be. That omission is exacerbated by the lack of detail on the meaning of accountable autonomy and on how that concept will function. It is important that schools appoint teachers — particularly leaders — who have a commitment to the ethos regardless of their own background, in order to achieve and maintain high standards.
Boards of governors must have significant influence over the appointment and management of staff. We have been told that the ESA will be the de jure employer or employing authority whereas boards of governors will be the de facto employer on all practical matters. Those roles must be clarified and confirmed in legislation or in guidance.
The CCMS regards accountable autonomy as a significant opportunity for all schools to have the potential to access a more extensive range of responsibilities than those that are available under the current voluntary principle. However, that voluntary principle is not available to all schools. We believe that schools should have the potential to aspire to, or earn, that greater level of autonomy, and accountability aspects must be reflected in that. It should empower with a view to, primarily, raising standards rather than constraining, but we need detail on how that issue might operate.
It is important that there is equality in the proposals. The CCMS believes that the Catholic sector and the controlled sector should have the same legal protections that are available to the integrated and Irish-medium sectors, as was suggested in the outcomes of the working group on establishing a culture of tolerance. The Catholic sector is not asking for anything that should not be available to other sectors.
CCMS believes that all sectors should have access to a support body with a range of functions that are consistent with the needs and responsibilities of the sector. In the case of the Catholic sector, those are well outlined in policy paper 21, with the exception of the role of raising standards, which I will refer to later. Those responsibilities, in addition to the role of raising standards, include: developing ethos; an advocacy role on behalf of the sector; clarity on the role of school owners in the planning and provision of schools under an area-based planning process, managed, after the second Bill has been implemented, by the ESA acting as a neutral body; and the supporting of schools and the appointment of teachers, particularly at leadership levels.
All those functions are based on ensuring the effectiveness of every school in the sector, imbued by the ethos of that sector, recognised in the schemes of management and employment. The experience of the CCMS has been that ethos adds value, and improvement in the sector appears to support that position. We believe that sectoral support is valuable, it should be available to every sector, and its functions and relationships should be explicit in the Bill. The sectoral support body exists to assist schools. The Catholic sector also wishes that all of its schools be recognised as Catholic, grant-aided schools. That issue will be addressed in the second Bill.
The final issue is that of raising standards. Every child is entitled to a high quality education at a good school. Raising standards needs to be an explicit role of the ESA, the sectoral body and the individual school. However, only the schools can deliver directly on the raising of standards. Clause 34 of the Bill needs to include reference to the sectoral support body as well as to the ESA in respect of raising standards and to clarify the respective roles and relationships of each of those bodies on the important issue of raising standards.
The CCMS was created primarily because trustees and Government had concerns about standards. We know that standards have improved, and it is important to analyse how that came about. Some of the characteristics of that change include: the importance of an agreed and shared ethos; the value of employing people committed to that ethos; the value of the ethos in addressing underperformance and aspiring to high standards, and the importance of support which understands and promotes the ethos. The experience of the CCMS should give confidence to other sectors that, with the proper conditions in place, standards can be raised.
CCMS will be gone, but it wants the new arrangements to work effectively. To ensure that they do, there must be: an understanding of the objectives of the proposed changes, particularly with respect to improving educational outcomes; an acceptance of the diversities of pluralist society and of the need to provide for those equally; a recognition of the importance of ethos and the added value that it brings to each sector; a clarity in legislation and guidance on the roles of boards of governors in the employment of teachers and the nature and functioning of accountable autonomy; and a recognition of the role of school owners in the framing of schemes of management and employment, the selection of community governors committed to the ethos of the school and the planning and provision of schools.
Governance arrangements should be effective and competent to do the job and be free from politicisation. Thank you, Chairperson.
The Chairperson:
We always seem to return to either clause 8 or clause 3, which are fundamental to those concerned. With respect to the point I made earlier to the commission delegation on clause 8, if there were to be built in some appeal or regulation of control, do you think it would go any way towards addressing concerns over employment schemes and schemes of management?
Mr Donal Flanagan (Chief Executive, Council for Catholic Maintained Schools):
When this exercise started, our first meeting was with Angela Smith and we explained the issues to her. She said that it was not beyond the wit of man to create a difference between an employing authority as employers de jure and a board of governors as employers de facto. Jim has said that there is not enough clarity in the legislation in relation to the role of boards of governors. If that role were clarified, we might make some progress.
The legislation contains a requirement for the ESA to approve the scheme of management and the scheme of employment. That is not a difficulty. To create a difference between the employer and the employing authority, we can give the ESA a statutory role to support the board of governors in the exercise of its function as employer.
That would provide a degree of consistency and accountability throughout the system; that is what I call a “light touch”. In other words, the ESA would not have to control it, but it could advise on how it works. If people followed that advice, they will not get into trouble; if people wilfully ignore that advice, they should not be indemnified. There is an opportunity to create a difference between an employing authority and an employer de jure.
The Chairperson:
Are you aware of any examples of similar practices that could be used in the education sector?
Mr Flanagan:
The closest to it is the example that exists in the CCMS; we are the lead employer, but we do not exercise that with a heavy hand. Boards of governors are responsible for the employment of teachers, and they exercise that role by using advice that is given to them by the CCMS. We have seldom inhibited a board of governors from exercising its will; we have done so only when people were acting in a silly manner.
With a minor extension to the CCMS’s role, we could create what the voluntary grammar, the Catholic maintained, the integrated and Irish-medium and, I expect, many in the controlled sector have and want in future.
Ms La'Verne Montgomery (Council for Catholic Maintained Schools):
Schedules 7 and 8 are minor amendments to current legislation, including the removal of schedule 2 of the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1998. That relates to the staff of controlled and Catholic maintained schools with delegated budgets and covers discipline and grievance under a board of governors control, the right to suspend employees and provisions in relation to dismissals. We presume that those functions will be provided for elsewhere; as yet, however, they are not, and that is our concern. The omission may imply a change in the authority of boards of governors in respect of discipline, grievance and dismissal. In effect, that would remove those employer functions from boards of governors and, presumably, pass them to the ESA. There is a need to clarify those points, generally and particularly, in relation to any model in a scheme of management or scheme of employment.
The Chairperson:
That is helpful in view of the concern that exists about the revisions of employment schemes. I am sure that the thought will send shudders through the maintained sector, but if I were a teacher in a maintained school and was dismissed, against whom would I take a grievance? Would I take it against the CCMS or the Department? That will provide clarity on concerns that are being raised all the time. If the CCMS is the employer — as is the case at present — but the Department has responsibilities, on whose door would I knock if I wanted to take someone to court and get my compensation?
Mr Flanagan:
If you were appointed as a teacher in a CCMS school, you would be a good teacher, and the likelihood of your being dismissed would be slim. However, if you were dismissed for doing something that was not correct, your representation would be against the CCMS.
Ms Montgomery:
It would be against the board of governors in the first instance; the CCMS would be co-joined.
The Chairperson:
How would that change if the CCMS functions were transferred to the ESA? That is the nub of the matter.
Mr Flanagan:
The difference is that we do not know how the ESA will exercise its employing authority; there is no clarity on the role of boards of governors. We have clarity, evidence of good practice, and evidence of delegating considerable amounts of autonomy to local level.
We have heard about accountable autonomy, but we have not seen it; we do not know how it will work, and it has never been described to me in any discussion with anyone.
The Chairperson:
Trevor said that, from his observation, he can see no problem. However, clause 3 states that:
“All teachers and other persons who are appointed to work under a contract of employment on the staff of a grant-aided school shall be employed by ESA.”
Therefore if I were employed by the ESA and a problem arose — taking La’Verne’s comments about clause 7 into account — I would knock on the door of the ESA. I would not take a board of governors to court; I would take the ESA to court.
Mr Flanagan:
The ESA will be a statutory body whose make-up will be largely political. Equally, we can work on the basis that the make-up of that statutory body will not necessarily support any one sector or be committed to any one ethos. The CCMS has been appointed as a statutory body to support the maintenance and standards of Catholic maintained schools, so there are people in that organisation who are sensitive and committed to working towards the promotion of the Catholic ethos. They are not all from the Catholic denomination.
The difficulty is that we do not know how the ESA will interpret its role as the employing authority; if the ESA were given that authority, it would be a matter for it to interpret. There is no clarity on how it might wish to do that. That is our concern and our fear.
The ESA is not necessarily a problem, but the ESA operating in a neutral manner would be a problem.
Mr J Clarke:
The issue is one of clarity — and clause 3 lacks clarity. Its title is:
“ESA to employ all staff of grant-aided schools”
and it also refers to the ESA as the employer. It may not be legally correct, but, in common parlance, the roles that boards of governors play in the Catholic maintained sector is that of employer while the CCMS is the employing authority. If the ESA were both employing authority and employer, what will the role of boards of governors be and how will that be affected by the operation of accountable autonomy? Accountable autonomy is an important driver in raising standards. We want boards of governors to show the qualities, enthusiasm and commitment to take authority because they want to do better for their schools.
The Chairperson:
That is useful, but I have a query. You raised concerns, as I did earlier, about community governors, will you expand on those concerns? In paragraph 6.2 of your submission you refer to persons living and working in the local community and state that:
“Council believes it may be worth questioning if this is still a realistic understanding”.
Mr Flanagan:
There are two issues. One is the process of selection, to which Bishop Walsh referred this morning. That should be done “in consultation with”, and despite what Nelson may have seen or heard at the Belfast board, that list of names was produced after a great deal of preparation and discussion with the relevant officers from both bodies; those names were selected “in consultation with”. That is an issue about process. If the ESA appoints people “in consultation with”, I do not see any concerns for the future.
Commitment is an issue. A community governor would have to be sensitive to, comfortable with, and committed to the promotion of the Catholic ethos in a Catholic school. It would be a very disruptive board of governors if individuals disagreed openly about something that is so important to the running of a school.
The Chairperson:
Ethos is not included in the definition of “community”; the Bill refers to someone living and working in the local community. Are we clear about what is meant by “community”?
People have different interpretations and definitions of community. Do you not see that that could cause problems?
Mr J Clarke:
In our submission we asked for clarity on that matter because of the differing circumstances of our schools — about one third of our schools are now recognised as extended schools. We see education linked to other public services, particularly health and social services and community development. Those issues should be reflected in schools to recognise an area’s circumstances. Strategies and people should be in place who understand how relationships and links can be developed to enhance education generally and the community in particular.
Mr O’Dowd:
Bishop McAreavey, you and your colleagues are very welcome. Today’s debate has revolved around the role of boards of governors, the employing authority and the employment rights of boards of governors. Donal, you said that the employing authority is the CCMS. If it came to your attention as the employing authority that the employment practices of a board of governors were outside the law, would you act?
Mr Flanagan:
Yes.
Mr O’Dowd:
Why, then, would you not expect the ESA to act in future if it came to its attention that a board of governors was acting outside the law?
Mr Flanagan:
If the ESA were the employing authority, I would expect it to act. If it were the body that provided statutory advice to schools, it would have to ask the board of governors to account for the breach of statutory advice but not necessarily employment law. There is a slight difference. Either way, however, intervention is needed when people act inappropriately or in a wilful manner.
(The Deputy Chairperson [Mr D Bradley] in the Chair)
Mr O’Dowd:
There was a wee bit of noise, so I am not sure whether we are contradicting each other. Are we?
Mr Flanagan:
No. We started this process with a discussion about the employing authority and the employer; at that stage, the Minister said that it was not beyond the wit of man to have clear blue water between them. If the role of governors was clarified and determined, we would be having a slightly different argument about the interface between the ESA as the employing authority and the board of governors as the employer. We do not have that clarity and division between the two. In the absence of that, it is better for the board of governors to be the employer than it would be for the ESA.
Mr O’Dowd:
Under your proposals, there would be several hundred employing authorities rather than one, because each board of governors would be an employing authority. That would be a logistical nightmare.
I would like to ask about representation at a tribunal or in a court of law in relation to employment matters. I understand that the CCMS carries out the ethos, which is fair enough. However, a barrister before a tribunal — regardless of their ethos — advocates the law and defends a case based on law, not on ethos: no legal defence can be based on ethos.
Mr Flanagan:
There are two issues. One is about the plethora of schools that we would have, but we have that at the minute: there are 1,300 schools and 1,300 boards of governors. Many of them do extremely good jobs in raising standards and in ensuring and supporting the welfare of children, so why not take the next step and give them responsibility for the employing authority role? Advice and support would be available to them from the ESA.
You must remember that this process was about mopping up and tying up administration, not changing the system.
Mr O’Dowd:
I disagree.
Mr Flanagan:
The review of public administration (RPA) came about to reduce the amount of administration in education — not necessarily to threaten anybody or to get rid of anything that was good but to provide a more coherent and efficient way of working. We can do that, and the CCMS has demonstrated — through its practice over the past 20 years — that it is capable of handing more responsibilities to boards of governors.
It is not the Assembly, the Education Committee, the Department of Education, Donal Flanagan or anybody else who raises standards: schools raise standards; and unless you bring decision making down to that level, whether with finance or the employment of staff, you will not raise standards. Some schools are extremely good at exercising that degree of autonomy, and many others are capable of it, and some schools would need more support than others. However, the ESA, which will have a statutory duty to provide advice and guidance on a range of issues, will have the authority to intervene.
I may give the impression of having something other than a light touch; however, I do not have the authority to go into a school or to direct anybody to do anything. I use influence, advice and guidance. By exercising their responsibilities based on that advice and guidance, boards of governors have demonstrated that they do not act wilfully; therefore, I can indemnify and defend them in any court of law. As La‘Verne said, when a barrister joins us on a particular case, he co-joins the board of governors and the CCMS. That is what would happen in relation to the ESA.
Mr O’Dowd:
Yes; but a barrister defends you on the basis of the law, not on the basis of an ethos. I admire the work of the CCMS; however, why does it never delegate employment authority to the boards of governors?
Mr Flanagan:
It is not within the legislation for us to do that.
Mr O’Dowd:
I do not remember it being lobbied for either. [Laughter.]
Mr Flanagan:
We have argued for it. We embraced the review of public administration because it would allow us to go to the next stage and delegate responsibility to the boards of governors. We have talked about the strength of governors and how they are selected, and we firmly believe that good schools have good governors. If you pick good governors who can manage properly, you will have a good school. Therefore give governors more power and responsibility to allow them to do their job.
The Deputy Chairperson:
You talked about delegation, which brings us back to the question of autonomy. We have three different forms of terminology: maximised autonomy; maximised supported autonomy; and accountable autonomy. Are we talking about the same thing?
Mr J Clarke:
I hope so. As you say, the language has changed. I reiterate my earlier point: what we need is clarity so that we know precisely what we mean when we talk about the employing authority role of the ESA, the role that boards of governors will have as employers, and the role that, over time, might be devolved to boards of governors, depending on the desire and capability of a board. If you encourage people to take responsibility and make them accountable, they will do a better job. In answer to John’s question, had accountable autonomy — in whatever terminology — been around, several boards of governors and several clusters of schools in the maintained sector could have operated a devolved model. We would like to encourage that.
The Deputy Chairperson:
Donal is right. We talked about the ESA being a major part of the RPA and the streamlining of administration, and we were told that savings of £20 million would be directed into front-line services. That is now in doubt. As Mrs Bradley said, the Department’s emphasis has changed and is now on raising standards, which was the CCMS’s raison d’être when it started out. You have been successful in that and you suggest that the sectoral body that replaces you should continue to have a role in raising standards. Presumably the ESA will retain its role in raising standards. What degree and what form of co-operation will work between a sectoral body with some responsibility for raising standards and the ESA?
Mr J Clarke:
That requires clarity. The ESA is the body responsible for raising standards generally through its support and challenge functions. The challenge function has not been played, except by the CCMS; we played it with a light touch and largely outside any legislative role that we have had. However, we have done that because, under our ethos, every child is entitled to a good education. When we face difficulties, we have, metaphorically, wrapped the arms of that ethos around the situation and told people that they have a responsibility to the children in their care. We do not think that that will change.
I do not want to introduce differentials, but the education and library boards have said that it is not their role to challenge; however, we believe that it is everyone’s role to challenge and that that is implicit in raising standards. If there has been a differential, the CCMS has challenged schools, and we have used that challenge role to try and raise standards. Some other sectors might not have done that.
It must be asked whether the neutral position or that of influence based on ethos has been more successful. Every sector should have that backup, and the ESA should be able to call on backup from a sectoral support body to support it in finding a way into a school or board of governors that a neutral external body simply might not be able to do. That is good for value for money if it achieves better outcomes for children and for education services.
Mr Flanagan:
Earlier, we talked about having good governors in schools. If, for example, the problem at a school is the governors, the sectoral support body can have huge influence through the trustees’ nominations, through the ESA’s nomination or through community nominations to begin to change a board of governors. We have effected such change on a number of occasions in the past 20 years. We have moved people out of boards of governors and put new people on boards midstream. That is one of the great advantages that a sectoral support body has, because it will have the ear of the body of the trustees who have the ownership role at schools.
(The Chairperson [Mr Storey] in the Chair)
Mr McCausland:
The CCMS is a statutory body. How is its membership constituted?
Mr Flanagan:
It is a constituted body of 36 members, 20 of whom are nominated by the trustees. Of those 20, 10 are directly nominated by the trustees and the remaining 10 are selected from people who have a contribution to make to education — academics, heads of institutions, business people, former assistant secretaries at the Department of Education or prominent people in the Protestant community.
The Department of Education selects eight people by public advertisement. Four parent governors are selected on the basis that they are selected at local level — one cannot be a parent governor on the CCMS if one has not been selected at local level. A list of names is submitted from each of the dioceses. Similarly, people elected as teacher representatives in their own schools can come forward for selection to the CCMS.
Mr McCausland:
Therefore, 20 appointments come through the trustees, eight come through the Department, four are parents and four are teachers.
Mr Flanagan:
That is correct.
Mr McCausland:
Earlier, a question was asked about the boards of governors at Catholic-maintained schools. How many people from the Protestant community are on boards of governors in schools in Northern Ireland?
Mr Flanagan:
As you might expect, I do not have that information; nor do we gather it. We have anecdotal evidence. For instance, a school, which I cannot name, had lots of difficulties, and, as part of our intervention strategy, we created space — for want of a better word — on the board of governors. I went to a person who was not from the Catholic denomination but who has tremendous educational credibility. He went on to that board of governors and his influence was fundamental to making differences to the school. I have done that on a number of occasions. I select people on the basis that they are able to do a particular job.
Equally, there are Catholic schools in which a significant number of children from other denominations are present, and people of those denominations have opportunities, through parental representation, to be members of that board of governors. I cannot give any exact detail, but I can say that through departmental representation, education and library board representation, trustee representation and parent representation, a significant number of people from other denominations sit on the boards of governors of Catholic schools.
Mr McCausland:
I appreciate that you do not have exact figures, but most people would expect you to have some sense of the general picture: would it be 1%, 5%, 50%; what would be the overall figure?
Mr Flanagan:
I would say that it is less than 5%.
Mr McCausland:
Is it much less than 5% — less than 5% could be one in 1,000; or it might be 0·1% — can you estimate?
Mr Flanagan:
It is probably more than 1%, and less than 5%. I would need to do a lot of work and survey the boards of governors of all of our schools to answer that. However, there is no exclusion on people who are sensitive to and committed to the promotion of ethos. The acceptance of office allows people to say that they are committed to and will work within the policies of the Catholic school.
Mr McCausland:
I am asking this question because people in the Protestant community do not have a detailed understanding of the internal workings of the Catholic sector. Therefore, I do not wish to be in any way problematic, it is simply to get an understanding of the prevailing situation.
Mrs O’Neill:
You are obviously committed to equality of opportunity in the Catholic employment sector. One issue that you raised in your submission centres on maintaining ethos, which has been rehearsed many times today. In particular, you are seeking assurances about the Department’s powers — in clause 5(2) and clause 12 — as regards fair employment legislation; for example, whether it would have the power to make change. Any change to fair-employment legislation can only be taken forward through OFMDFM; it would not be in the remit of the Department of Education.
The Department’s paper states that the provisions give it very limited powers to modify employment law to facilitate the operation of the employment arrangements in the Bill. It has suggested also that it is not aware of any need to modify employment law in that regard, and it has no plans to do so. Is that sufficient reassurance for you; or do you want to see something stronger?
Ms Montgomery:
That is very helpful. Obviously, it is not in the Bill as currently drafted. Our concern about the exemption is more to do with administration in relation to appointments. We have 500 appointments a year, and I can count the number of tribunals that would be lodged in one year on the fingers of one hand. We are concerned that if the exemption were removed, it may bring an influx of tribunals, not necessarily on merit — that is a reality of life.
Our position is that we advocate very strongly the retention of the exemption in relation to teacher appointments.
Mr Lunn:
I wanted to make the same point. I am perfectly happy with the response, so I will not trouble you with a question.
Mr D Bradley:
Are there teachers employed in Catholic schools who do not subscribe to the Catholic faith; who are not Catholics?
Mr Flanagan:
Yes.
Ms Montgomery:
We do not gather information on people’s religious denomination, but our understanding is that there are people who are not of the Catholic faith.
Mr D Bradley:
Are those people in leadership roles as well as in classrooms?
Mr J Clarke:
Yes.
Ms Montgomery:
Again, that is anecdotal information as opposed to anything that we gather on a formal basis.
The Chairperson:
I thought that, given Donal’s recommendation earlier, I was going to be appointed.
Mr Flanagan:
I said only if you were good enough. [Laughter.]
Mr McCausland:
Does everyone who is appointed have to subscribe to promoting the ethos of the Catholic sector?
Ms Montgomery:
We have a Catholic vision, to which all of our schools have effectively signed up, and we make reference to that in our advertisements for appointments, both in the ‘Irish News’ and on our website. Any teacher who applies for a post in a Catholic-maintained school knows exactly what they are signing up to and what the school believes in.
Mr McCausland:
If someone were applying in response to an advertisement to be a member of the board of the CCMS, would they have to subscribe to the ethos?
Ms Montgomery:
That would be determined by the criteria that the Department of Education sets for governors.
Mr J Clarke:
Our point is not just about the Catholic ethos; it is also about the integrated ethos, the Irish-medium ethos and all others. If people commit to an ethos, they will bring value to it. Therefore, it is important to encourage people to understand an ethos so that they can commit to it.
The Chairperson:
Paragraph 9.3 of your submission states:
“Council would seek assurance on the standing of such bodies preferably through some formal recognitions in the Bill.”
Does that arise due to lack of clarity in the Department’s policy paper 21 or is it due to more fundamental concerns on the role of sectoral support bodies?
Mr J Clarke:
The function of policy paper 21 is to describe the main functions of sectoral support bodies; it does not say anything about their legal standing. At the beginning of the process, the given wisdom was that since the ESA would be the administrative arm of education, some of the functions that are currently with the CCMS and other bodies would be brought under the ESA’s influence. However, if sectoral support bodies are to play their role effectively and complement, rather than compete with, the ESA, their functions need to be clarified for themselves, boards of governors and the ESA. Commission members made the important point that there should be some mechanism whereby their voice is heard by boards of governors, especially on matters concerning the improvement of standards in schools.
Mr Flanagan:
Bishop Walsh said that if we have such a body, its role and connection with boards of governors should be clearly spelt out or it will begin to disappear.
The Chairperson:
I thank you all for taking the time to come to the Committee and endure the marathon that we have had this morning. The meeting has been useful and profitable. As there is a crossover between yourselves and the issues raised by the commission, I hope that you feel that you have had the opportunity to raise your concerns, both in your submission and in oral evidence. We will ensure that you get a copy of the Department’s response. If you have outstanding issues that you want to raise with us, we are quite happy to receive comments from the CCMS.
Dr McAreavey:
We appreciate that your task is a very difficult one, and we would be glad to help in any way we can.