Policy Paper

Post-primary Transfer Briefing

June 2008

0.1 This paper is an initial briefing on Alliance Party policy on post-primary transfer, for use by the Education Committee.  

0.2 It seeks to recognize that, although in the ideal world the existing Alliance policy would be taken forward wholesale, in this less than ideal world we have to deal with the practical realities of proposals brought forward by the Minister, Executive and debates held in the Assembly. We note that these have changed, fundamentally, our starting point.  

0.3 The issue cannot be dealt with in isolation – this document outlines the broad principles of the party’s overall education policy as they relate to schools.    

1. Position  

1.1 The Education Minister has confirmed her direct-rule predecessor’s acceptance of the decision to abolish the 11-plus. Further, she has stated a preference for transfer at 14 by means other than academic selection. In principle, this is very close to the established Alliance Party position.

1.2 In practice, however, the Minister brought forward proposals which in fact maintain selection on 15 May, although by declining proportion over a three-year period. It remains unclear precisely what would happen at the end of this period, what implications this has for the school estate, and where the budget is to come from. However, leaving open the possibility that parents may vote with their feet, and given that the ‘end’ may justify the ‘means’, the Alliance Party did not rule out the plans, but continues to request further detail.  

1.3 Our concern should be noted, however, that integrated (or, indeed, broadly ‘shared’ or ‘mixed’) education has not been mentioned at all as part of the process. The Alliance Party stated concern about this in the Programme for Government response.  

1.4 The Minister has not absolutely clarified that she will bring her proposals to the floor of the Assembly. As a democratic party acting in line with previous position on other issues, Alliance spokespeople have called for this to happen.  

1.5 Some schools seemingly remain prepared to set their own entrance exams, in cooperation with each other. The Alliance Party has cautioned that the establishment of such ‘ad hoc’ exams may become semi-permanent, and would seek clarity on the legal implications.  

1.6 There is some frustration that the Minister has stated her broad ideological thoughts, but has not clarified an actual ultimate vision for the education system. What, in fact, is her reform supposed to achieve? As her ideology is at direct odds to the vast majority of MLAs and the NI public, how can she gain support without clarifying the vision or the detail? The Alliance Party’s vision is of a highly vocational system meeting modern economic needs.    

2. Overall Policy  

2.1 The party’s current education policy can be traced back to 2000, so it is fair to note that it has not formally been updated to take account of: declining budget and birth rate; rising immigration from non-English-speaking countries; and rising survey support for integrated education. More obviously still, it does not take account of the Minister’s current proposals.  

2.2 More recent public actions by the Alliance Party on education include:

• support for prioritisation of extra resources for language teaching for those whose first language is not English;
• call for the Minister to consider merging controlled and maintained schools (this is noteworthy because such mergers would not necessarily create an ‘integrated’ school under current definitions); and
• support for clearer ‘area-planning’ and better use of school buildings.

  2.3 The party policy includes pledges that:

• citizenship and anti-sectarian awareness should form part of curriculum;
• nursery school places should be guaranteed to all who need them;
• additional resources should be allocated for special needs;
• 11-plus exam should be abolished and use of academic ability to determine who is given a place should ‘not be allowed’;
• a common middle-school curriculum to age 14 should be developed, at which stage parents would choose between vocational, technical, and academic educational routes;
• a revised pupil profile should be implemented; and
• support should be given to access to integrated education for all (including more integrated places, but not necessarily more integrated schools).

This remains relevant in the current context.  

2.4 The principles from the party’s response to the Programme for Government and Budget consultation are relevant: tackling sectarianism/segregation: to be delivered by existing commitments to citizenship within the curriculum, more integrated places, and shared facilities; re-balancing the economy: to be delivered by implementation of a vocational, skills-focused system to replace ‘secondary’; delivering sustainability: to be delivered through shared facilities between schools, and amalgamations of existing schools where appropriate (included controlled and maintained working more closely together).  

2.5 We would add the following notes from existing party policy in the current context: guaranteed nursery provision and extra special needs resources remain an objective, but we recognize limited finance; details of what constitutes a ‘pupil profile’ are for professionals to decide – currently, ‘pupil profiles’ are an inappropriate guide for use to ‘select’ pupils, as they are simply not designed for that purpose; and we oppose ‘academic selection’ in principle, but recognize the merit for using ‘academic ability’ in some disciplines. These comments are entirely consistent with much more recent party principles and commitments as stated in public, in the Assembly, and in literature (including those under which the most recent election was successfully fought).  

2.6 We do need to be keenly aware, in practice, about how certain schools will continue to be perceived. Parents and teachers will continue to gravitate towards the ‘better-image’ schools regardless of actual government policy. The penalty of a ‘postcode lottery’ may be the ring-fencing of children in poorer areas into schools with poor images.  

2.7 We note with concern the lack of apparent budget available for carrying through fundamental educational reforms. Such reforms would, by necessity, require significant re-distribution of central government funds from other departments for a period of years. This funding needs to be identified. The Alliance Party position is that this requires stiffer targets for efficiency savings.  

2.8 We further note that several other models proposed by the Committee – e.g. Finland – were introduced via a gradual approach, over a period of years.

3. Conclusion  

3.1 Very broadly the Alliance Party’s preferences would be as follows:
(a) a system which abolishes academic selection at 11 and moves towards a choice, made by parents in co-operation with teachers, of educational route at age 14;
(b) a system which gradually removes academic selection at 11 for replacement by a system maximising parental choice; then
(c) a system which maintains academic selection to a limited number of schools, which are prohibited by law from lowering their standards to increase intake.  

3.2 The issue for many parents is the over-subscription of grammar (or ‘better image’) schools. The ultimate objective of Alliance Party policy is not to prohibit academic selection of any kind, but rather to prioritise modern vocational education to such an extent that academic selection becomes redundant (in that the choice between academic and vocational is not seen as between ‘good’ and ‘bad’).    

IJP, 18-JUN-2008