Northern Ireland Assembly Flax Flower Logo

General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland

 COMMITTEE FOR EDUCATION REQUEST FOR VIEWS ON THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION’S PROPOSAL FOR TRANSFER TO POST-PRIMARY EDUCATION FROM 2010

Background

The issue of selection remains one of the most contentious issues within the Northern Ireland Education System. It is probably true to say that no issue has been quite so hotly contested, and that much of the debate has been conducted in the absence of specificity in regard to possible proposals, understandably so, given that the Minister has adopted what might be characterised as a protracted approach to consultation. However, it is also true to say that much of the public debate has not involved a detailed analysis of emerging needs, social and economic, and how best the education system should respond to these.

What is inevitable is that change must come. The Minister’s proposals represent one perspective. The Council’s concern is whether or not, at this stage, the practical out-workings of the proposals can be fully understood in the absence of detail in regard to other issues such as area-based planning. The Minister has indicated that the work of the five area based planning groups will commence quickly, and the Council would encourage her to have them expedite their work as speedily as is prudent.

It is not the purpose of this paper to speculate on the details of new admissions structures and processes rather the intention is to flag up some of the salient factors that should inform the debate.

Selection and Open Enrolment

The introduction of open enrolment saw the advent of a policy often dubbed “a space equals a place”; quite simply it removed the notion of a ‘qualified quota’, which had held numbers in grammar schools to approximately 27% of the post-primary school population and required that such schools fill up to their capacity. The consequence of this is that selective schools now educate over 40% of the post-primary school population.

In effect, open enrolment allied to league tables saw the introduction of market forces into all aspects of post-primary schooling, with both grammar schools and popular non-selective schools drawing pupils away from schools seen to be less attractive or successful.

The DENI Inspectorate in their 1994 report on Secondary Education made specific reference to the changes generated by open enrolment. It noted that:

“Some grammar schools now have a more comprehensive enrolment than previously and some non-selective schools have large numbers of pupils with significant problems in literacy and numeracy.” (1)

These trends evident as far back as 1994 have accelerated in the intervening years.

Selection and Social Differentiation

It is indisputable that our present selective system allied to the policy of open enrolment, results in an element of social differentiation in our post-primary schools as evidenced by the difference in entitlement to free school meals, the DE proxy measure for social disadvantage and also as a measure of relative socio-economic status (SES).

The impact of open enrolment should not be underestimated, Echols et al writing of circumstances in Scotland commented that:

“…legislation on parental choice …increased social segregation between schools.” (2)

It should be noted that Scotland had comprehensive system in place which, in the opinion of Echols, had brought considerable gains to children with parents who were manual workers. There is some Northern Ireland research, Sutherland et al, that suggests that open enrolment allied to selection favours those of higher socio-economic status:

“Children from professional and managerial backgrounds, continued to be at an advantage over others if they were awarded any of the lower grades.” (3)

Indeed, Sutherland’s research suggests that such parents were more than twice as successful as others in securing a grammar place for their child.

The issue of social differentiation and its impact on education outcomes is complex. It is easy to take refuge in stereotypes by suggesting as some do an inevitable link between SES and poor motivation and so forth. While there are undoubtedly trends associated with socio-economic disadvantages Sutherland and Purdy remind us:

“… the stereotype of disadvantaged pupils being more negatively disposed towards their schooling and education does not reflect inevitable reality, at least not in the case of the Northern Ireland school pupils.” (4)

That said there does exist considerable research to suggest that where schools are serving a school population with a preponderance of social deprivation, and are also situated in an area of multiple deprivation it has a significant impact depressing both aspirations and motivation.

Interestingly, the latest PISA survey published in 2007 recognises the complexities surrounding this issue and notes, in a section discussing selection:

“It is clearly not possible for every school to raise its students performance by becoming more selective about its intake. A clear cut finding from PISA is that early differentiation of students by school is associated with wider than average socio-economic disparities and not with better results overall.” (5)

As noted above, the issue is complex but what cannot be denied is that the operation of open enrolment in a selective system has had perhaps unintended effects creating a cohort of schools, as foreseen by the Education and Training Inspectorate in 1994, with significant difficulties.

One of the most evident of the presumably unintended impacts has been the reality that, in an era of demographic decline, it is the non-selective system which has borne the brunt of the economic uncertainties arising from the operation of LMS and formula funding, and this has created very significant difficulties for some schools. The reality is that schools, seen as less attractive, face mounting difficulties with a reducing funding allied to a change in the social composition of the student population and the associated problems this brings. Quite simply, such schools become embroiled in a vortex of problems, many of which cannot readily be addressed within diminishing resources. The implementation of the Group 1 school initiative reflected a DENI recognition of the realities facing such schools, and sought to bring an element of stability to staffing and funding allowing for a less reactive and resource driven approach to management issues.

As already noted the issue of SES as a factor in overall performance is not a simple one, but it is readily accepted that there is a correlation between SES and social capital which plays a significant role in pupil motivation. This raises the question as to whether optimising the performance of the system requires that efforts are made to ensure that school enrolments are managed to ensure what might be deemed ‘a balanced social mix’, which in itself is a controversial issue. However, what is most interesting is that a detailed consideration of these issues has not been an obvious feature of the public debate on academic selection.

Indeed, there might be cause to question whether in pursuit of excellence for all and in response to the growing pressures arising from globalisation and the knowledge economy, our concerns regarding the shape of post-primary education should extend beyond the issue of selection, to embrace the perhaps even more problematic issue of defining and ensuring an optimum ‘social mix’ within schools?

What must be recognised is that both socially and economically Northern Ireland cannot afford to have a system of education that does not ensure excellence for all particularly in light of the impact of globalisation and the knowledge economy.

Globalisation and the Knowledge Economy

The issues surrounding the impact of globalisation: the decline in manufacturing and the rise of the service sector, has been recognised for almost a decade. The UK National Advisory Council for Education and Training Targets, reflecting in 2000 on the changing demands on the workforce noted, in regard to the UK as a whole:

“55% of all new jobs that are likely to be created in the next few years (444,000 out of 851,000) will be at levels NVQ3 and above. Only 18% are likely to require qualifications below level 2.” (6)

In short, the knowledge economy has no place for underachievement. Indeed, there is a somewhat simplistic and complacent perception that if we in Europe merely enhance our performance then we will prosper in this emerging economic climate. This is a ‘simplistic’ view, in that it neglects to factor in to the equation the sharp improvements being made in what are now referred to as the BRIC community: Brazil, Russia, India and China, with the last two making enormous strides in the area of science and technology education.

The Northern Ireland system offers no basis for complacency; whilst performing well at one end of the spectrum, our system has a tail of underachievement. This has implications for the promotion of social cohesion in a post-conflict society already feeling the impact of increasing diversity. In addition, whilst the Council rejects an overly simplistic utilitarian view of education, it does nonetheless readily recognise the role of the school system in preparing young people for working in economic conditions that will require ever more sophisticated levels of achievement. Thus, the fundamental question for Northern Ireland is how best we, as a society, can ensure that none are left behind in this increasingly sophisticated and competitive economic environment.

The challenges have not gone unnoticed in government. The core theme of the Northern Ireland Executive’s Draft Programme for Government 2008 – 2011 is the development of an innovative economy and the promotion of inclusion is seen as a vital element. In light of this, perhaps we should seek to be more focused in our examination of our school structures with these issues to the fore.

Curriculum Change and Entitlement: a complicating factor

Northern Ireland is presently engaged in one of the most radical programmes of change ever envisaged. Running parallel to the structural changes to be expedited through the Review of Public Administration, we have embraced widespread curricular change, along with the notion of ‘entitlement’ and have sought to establish a system that will require schools to work collectively, to an extent not seen previously, to ensure that pupils have access to their ‘entitlement’. The nature of the changes is, as yet, still uncertain. Much of the uncertainty has been around the ‘shape’ of the system. Whilst this issue has not arisen solely as a result of debate and dispute over the issue of selection, the lack of specificity in regard to the likely arrangements has fuelled concern and to an extent hindered a rational analysis of options and possibilities.

The Council would have wished to see more progress in regard to the issue of consortia arrangements and thus welcomes the establishment of the Area Planning Bodies. The Council does, however, consider that quite discrete from the issues pertaining to selection there are issues, in regard to the shape of the post-primary consortia arrangements, which must be clarified as a matter of urgency. Failure to do this will ensure that the resulting uncertainty will continue to cause concern, and possibly distort debate on the broader issue of selection and the ‘fitness for purpose’ of our system for the twenty-first century. Amongst the issues are:

Current Proposals

The Council has already noted its concerns about how the out-workings of the area based/Costello consortia will look and considers that any meaningful reflection on systemic change, and the current proposals regarding selection, requires that the potential dynamic created by the new arrangements for consortia must be considered. In short, parents will want to consider what local provision will be made and how secure are the arrangements to ensure that the entitlement curriculum can be provided to a uniform level of excellence. Equally, parents will wish to be assured that any concerns they may have in regard to issues such as ethos, cultural enrichment opportunities and subject option flexibility are addressed.

That said the Council recognises the realities emerging in the wake of the knowledge economy and the reality that social cohesion is a vital factor in the promotion of an integrated society. Indeed, it was in recognition of the centrality of education’s role in these issues that the Council published its Charter for Education in Northern Ireland, which set out what it believed should be the commitments made by society and government in regard to education; amongst them being:

The issues confronting us are not simple and any solution to the issue of post-primary education should be considered against the commitments set out in the Charter for Education. It would seem obvious though that any full evaluation of current proposals must wait until the out-workings of the area planning processes are more advanced, for it is only at that stage that we will be in a position to consider:

The Council would suggest that the tone of the debate and the quality of analysis can only be enhanced, if we address the issues noted above, and then subsequently seek to measure any proposals against the commitments enshrined within the GTCNI’s Charter for Education and the answers to the above issues.

Professional Development Needs

What is inevitable is the reality that, whatever the outcomes of the debate, the challenges facing the profession will be considerable:

In devising its competence framework the Council was at pains to point out that the application and mastery of competences was, to a great extent, ‘context dependent’. It follows from this that any changes to the post-primary context will require to be supported by a substantive programme of professional development, which allows the profession to engage individually and collectively as ‘communities of practice’ in reviewing their current competence base and their development needs.

Conclusion

As professionals, teachers in Northern Ireland will respond with commitment and diligence to whatever proposals are adopted. However, that said the profession itself must be reassured that it will be supported in its endeavours to best meet the needs of all pupils. This requires that teachers are assured of the resource base of education and the creation of an appropriate professional development infrastructure that allows the profession collectively, within communities of practice, and individually to enhance their skills, share their good practice and deliver an education system truly fit for purpose.

References
  1. DENI: 1994 ‘Secondary Education’.
  2. Echols, F, McPherson A, William JD:1990 “Parental choice in Scotland”
    (Journal of Education Policy 5, 3, (pp207-222).
  3. Sutherland A: “The Transfer Procedure Reformed” in Osborne R, Cormack R, Gallagher A: “After the Reform: Education Policy in Northern Ireland” Aldershot: Avebury
  4. Sutherland. A, Purdy. N: 2006 “Attitudes of the Socially Disadvantaged Towards Education in Northern Ireland.” No 40 2006. Department of Education.
  5. PISA 2007: “Science Competences for Tomorrow’s World.” OECD Paris 2007.
  6. NACETT 2000 “Learning Pages and Learning Works.”