NEELB Submission

Transfer to Post Primary Education from 2010

Background

• The present Transfer Procedure is discredited. Research has identified technical difficulties with the test e.g. the definitions of grade boundaries. Whilst geography often affects a pupil’s ability to obtain a grammar school place. This is neither fair nor equitable.
• As part of the discussions regarding the review of the Transfer Procedure from Primary to Post Primary Schools, Chief Executives met the Minister once and Departmental Officials on two occasions.

Context

• Schools are now beginning to work in collaboration, on a cross community basis, as Learning Communities to deliver the Entitlement Framework. Each school in the Learning Community has a particular niche in a ‘market’ which provides a breadth of learning opportunities for young people.
• The Specialist Schools initiative has promoted further, the concept of schools offering a particular form of education depending on their expertise but within an overall framework established by Learning Communities.
• The decline in pupil numbers is increasingly impacting on the Post Primary Sector affecting grammar school intakes and secondary school numbers.
• However there are a number of serious policy vacuums – no 14 to 19 policy, no sustainability policy, no outcome to the special education review, no political direction on the Bain Report or a Shared Future and only initial work on area based planning.
• Some schools have suggested that they will organise their own entrance test.

Issues:
1 The Test up to 2013

• The present proposals lead to a number of questions. There were 15,000 pupils who sat the Test in 2007; there is no reason to believe this number will be significantly reduced. Such numbers would suggest 200 – 300 pupils per grammar school. So where will the new test be held? How would the children get there? How will the test be supervised? Are there to be practise tests, if so how will they be organised?
• Will the test be based on the revised curriculum or is it an intelligence test?

2 Academic and other Criteria

• We welcome the phasing in of new non selective arrangements and expressed this view to the Minister. We believe phasing will allow grammar schools time to prepare for a wider ability intake. The issue is how best this can be managed – we favour 3 years where admissions based on academic criteria are reduced in equal proportions i.e. “2010 – 75%, 2011 – 50% and 2012 – 25%. This we believe would assist management at school level.
• If the child is to be central to the admissions process then there is no criterion dealing with ‘compelling individual circumstances’ or ‘special circumstances’. As all decisions relating to admission to schools are liable to judicial review we consider this a serious oversight. If there are no practice tests then how might a child’s performance on the day of the test be considered against past performance?
• The proposed non academic criteria in themselves are problematic e.g. proximity to the school could affect house prices as their application has done elsewhere and seriously affect rural dwellers. Have the proposals been rural proofed?
• Whilst we understand the reasons why socially disadvantaged criteria might be suggested we do not understand how they could be universally applied without a basis in legislation and ‘bussing’ of pupils in many cases.
• How will appeals be handled?

3 Other Issues

• What happens if grammar schools decide not to become ‘bilateral’ during 2010 – 2013? This issue becomes more complex when it is applied separately to the two major communities.
• The effect of the proposed review on school capacity is difficult to predict. It could lead to increased competition amongst schools and undermine collaboration especially when schools are still funded on the basis of LMS.
• The number of policy reviews suggested and the preparation for the implementation of these proposals suggests a longer lead in time than is currently available and may in some instance require further legislation.
• How will pupils with statements, who have a right to be educated in a mainstream setting, be treated?

Proposals

• In our discussions with DE we emphasised that we did not believe a deregulated transfer system would be good for children or parents and every effort should be made to reach a consensus on a revised system of transfer
• In the context of collaboration amongst schools to deliver the Entitlement Framework, it is inevitable that schools are positioning themselves according to their strengths. Some will concentrate on general education, some on vocational education and some on an academic education. Schools will therefore work at a different pace, some will include specialist provision and accommodation and others will, in partnership with FE, make vocational provision. So particular schools will suit particular pupils.
• Our proposal in this context was to suggest that the principle of parental choice should be paramount. Parents should, with appropriate guidance, be given the opportunity to elect school places for their children.
• Schools which are undersubscribed should be required to take all those pupils who apply. Oversubscribed schools should be required to establish and apply admissions criteria. These could be similar to those suggested by the Minister, with the reservations described above. In addition where schools are providing an academic education, and where the pace of progress through the curriculum will be enhanced then the literacy and numeracy abilities of the pupils applying should be considered. These scores could be available through the pupil profile.
• Clearly there is a need in this scenario to ensure there is a spread of provision in each Learning Community to ensure access to the Entitlement Framework and maximise choice.