Northern Ireland Assembly Flax Flower Logo

Note of Committee for Education Discussion on Transfer to Post-Primary Education on 20 June 2008, with amendments and additions to reflect the Committee’s continued discussions on 27 June and 4 July 2008

  1. The Deputy Chairperson proposed that each Party representatives in turn would highlight the key points in their Party’s papers and Committee Members would raise points from the papers for discussion. The Deputy Chairperson summarised the SDLP paper, followed by the UUP representative highlighting key points in the UUP paper.
  2. The need for rural proofing of the geographical criterion of ‘nearest suitable school’ was raised by DUP, SDLP & UUP representatives, who highlighted that many parents have concerns that they may be forced to send their children to their nearest school, which they regard as less desirable. The DUP and UUP representatives proposed that this criterion should be removed as it also disadvantages children in the rural community and children from poorer families who did not live in affluent areas near more desirable schools. They considered that with 50,000+ empty desks, new school buildings in rural communities may not be entertained by the Department of Education (DE). A Sinn Féin representative pointed out that apart from area-based planning of the school estate addressing these concerns, the Boards of Governors of schools could choose from the menu of non-academic criteria in Annex A of the Minister’s proposals of 15 May 2008. A number of members said that the NICIE proposal to use randomised alphabet for a tie break was not practical to address problems such as the ‘near suitable school’ criterion.
  3. The subject of many grammar schools accepting a much wider range of grades (A - D) in the 11+ was raised by the SDLP with the UUP representatives, pointing out that the grammar schools continue to get good results with this range of intake. The UUP argued that in some schools only occasional C and D’s are admitted to grammar schools, reflecting only siblings or extenuating circumstances. On the issue of increased grammar schools enrolments resulting in ‘sink’ secondary schools, the UUP proposed that this would be addressed by such schools becoming specialist schools with a high emphasis for example on pastoral care. Funding would have to reflect need and not be supplied on a ‘one-size-fits-all basis.’ The UUP said that the current specialist school definition and approach would need to be widened – it would be for Board of Governors to decide the nature of the specialisation. The UUP confirmed that it did not agree with capping grammar school enrolment numbers, for example, A and B grades only. However, the UUP did see certain minimum standards having to be reached and the need to recognise the needs of the economy by having a wider range of knowledge based subjects on offer – building on Maths, English and ICT. The DUP pointed out the danger of language which referred to ‘good’ schools as only grammar schools and the need to move to valuing vocational education.
  4. The subject of social disadvantaged criteria (the Minister referred to social justice criteria) was raised briefly by the UUP, who expressed the concern that this would result in more bussing of children.
  5. The UUP said it advised the AQE against setting their own tests – pointing out that it takes 2/3 years to validate a test, but recognised that they had little alternative. The Alliance Party representative regards the AQE actions as totally misplaced.
  6. The Alliance Party representative in summarising his paper, highlighted that the Party has reflected flexibility in its position at paragraph 3.1. The 3.1(c) position is not the Party’s preferred option, but reflected the reality under the current circumstances reached – the 3.1(c) position was likened to the DUP position. The UUP representative questioned the rationale of capping grammar school enrolments as this would increase stress in competition for places – the over-subscription problem would increase, alongside issues remaining for the rural community and in relation to the social justice criteria. The Alliance Party and UUP representatives agreed with the principle of expanding provision at schools, rather than limiting provision which would increase competition and stress. Both agreed that under the Minister’s current proposals, there is a danger of massive over-subscription. The Alliance Party representative considers that over-subscription in a tie-break situation could be addressed by the receiving school getting sight of a robust pupil profile. In response to the Deputy Chairperson’s question on what leeway was in the UUP paper, the UUP representative replied that the proposal to allow schools to broaden their intake (taking a larger range of C & D grades) represented a movement by grammar schools to become more accessible, but minimum standards are still required and academic criteria are still relevant in matching pupil needs. The UUP representative contrasted this to the Minister’s 50%, 30%, 20% proposal which limits grammar schools. The Deputy Chairperson commented that this UUP proposal would increase the number of schools with more challenging environments.
  7. On the Sinn Féin paper, a UUP representative questioned that the geographical criterion of ‘nearest suitable school’ goes against the equality agenda. The Sinn Féin representative reiterated that it is for the Board of Governors of schools to choose from the menu of non-academic criteria. A DUP representative raised a point regarding why England’s academic results were so poor compared to Northern Ireland and that the literacy & numeracy problems in Northern Ireland arise in primary schools, not as a result of selection at 11. The UUP representative referred to the 40 schools in North and West Belfast, which reflect the numeracy and literacy problem in Northern Ireland - saying that these 40 schools problems should be specifically tackled rather than reforming post-primary education as proposed by the Minister. The Sinn Féin representative was asked how over-subscription would be addressed – and responded that area-based planning should help address this, but Sinn Féin was open to other suggestions. The Sinn Féin representative added that all schools could have an academic stream. The SDLP representative on 27 June said that the concept of an academic stream could be developed into an academic school within a cluster of schools. Reference was made to the Minister’s earlier answer to a Committee question, “an area’s educational provision can have an academic stream as large as a school and provided by one if need be. The key is collaboration within an area-based plan.” On leeway within the Sinn Féin paper, the representative responded that the 50%, 30%, 20% proposal represents leeway, but added that on non-academic admissions criteria the Party was open to ideas. On bilateralism he added that it is the Party position that three years is enough, but the case for extension could be put to the Minister.
  8. On the DUP paper, the DUP representative highlighted the problems in relation to the Minister’s proposal included increased bussing of school children, the vacuum on a number of education policy areas, the literacy and numeracy problem in underachieving schools and concluded that breathing space and a period of reflection is needed. A UUP representative pointed out that a modern definition of vocational education was needed – Assembly Research will provide a short paper on this. On leeway within the DUP paper, the representative said there was no leeway and highlighted that there is a pre-determined outcome to the Minister’s proposals. In addition, the timescale for any changes is much too quick. The Sinn Féin representative responded by asking what length of a period of reflection is being sought – 6, 12, 18 months – should the Minister take her proposals away? The DUP representatives said they would consider this and the Deputy Chairperson asked all Party representatives to consider this point and other points raised in this session for next week’s discussion on transfer. Finally, the Deputy Chairperson asked Party representatives to pass any comments on the various Educational Stakeholders’ submissions to the Clerk by close Wednesday 25 June 2008, for circulation to all Members of the Committee in advance of Friday’s continued discussion on transfer. The Clerk was asked to provide a note of the discussion, highlighting where possible any common understandings reached by the Committee.
  9. A DUP representative on 27 June raised the issue of how we make the transition to the various types of school, e.g. grammar, secondary, specialist schools etc., with the children’s interest at the centre, rather than the various sectors wishing to maintain their particular ethos. The individual sectors have been allowed to be the focus in education and the big decision now is that area-based planning should create total equality in education in the interests of the child. Only then would you get a natural resolution of the transfer issue. Another DUP representative added that currently there is not sufficient protections in place for the controlled sectors. The discussion moved on that segregation in our schools costs millions and we need to compromise – yet the various sectors are moving on with rationalisations within their sectors, e.g. CCMS. The SDLP representative stated that CCMS has been working on many of these plans for a number of years to meet their current statutory obligations. The SDLP representative also said that CCMS should not be criticised for doing its job and doing it successfully. The UUP representative pointed out that collaborations between schools are increasing, e.g. Limavady. The Sinn Féin representative raised the questions, “What is academic education?” and “How do we achieve academic excellence?” He suggested that time spent in discussion on this might help the issue of entrance to post-primary schools at age 11. The discussion moved to more examples of individual school sectors’ plans which work against collaboration between sectors. The concern was raised that this will not help sort out the transfer debate and a period of reflection is badly needed to reach a way forward. If the current segregation is not addressed, issues of equality and human rights could well create more segregation on our schools.
  10. The Chairperson concluded the meeting of 27 June asking Members to provide any addenda to their Party papers by close Wednesday 2 July to the Committee Secretariat for circulation to the final Committee meeting discussion on transfer on 4 July, before issue of the Committee’s collective of papers to the Minister of Education – to be finalised and agreed on 4 July 2008.