SDLP Response to the Minister of Education’s Final Executive Paper – Transfer Policy and Post Primary Reform of 13 May 2008.
Academic Selection
SDLP has campaigned since its inception for an end to academic to selection, to create equality of opportunity and high quality education based on informed choice.
SDLP believes our children should have a primary education, uninterrupted by cramming, coaching, and cajoling, without the resulting sense of failure and loss of confidence experienced by many pupils; and without the sense of failure that academic selection brings.
We accepted the Costello report as a compromise. It proposed the retention of different school types and transfer at 11 but in the context of choice instead of academic selection and with flexible pathways and an ‘Entitlement Framework’ guaranteeing every child the type of education their parents thought appropriate, regardless of the school attended.
The SDLP welcomes the ending of academic selection and the introduction of non-academic admissions criteria.
The Temporary 11+
We are wary of the new test being introduced by the Minister of Education as we believe that it prolongs academic selection unnecessarily and that there is a danger that it may become a permanent feature. Whilst the SDLP can see that the Minister had hoped that a phase-out of academic selection would be helpful to selective schools the new test has not reassured those in favour of academic selection and has increased the anxieties of those opposed to academic selection who consider that it will continue to distort the primary school curriculum and that the parents of pupils who can afford coaching will once again have an unfair advantage.
The SDLP believes that the temporary 11+ is not compatible with the Revised Curriculum and will have all and more of the disadvantages of previous versions.
Election at Age 14
We agree that age 14 is a better age for key decisions on educational pathways and believe these should be flexible enough to allow a mix of academic and vocational subjects and the opportunity to switch between pathways.
According to the Minister’s proposals the process will be quite similar to the way in which pupils presently choose subjects for GCSE but it may also involve pupils moving from one school to another, and, according to the Minister’s answers to questions on this issue, receiving schools can assess the suitability of prospective candidates on the basis of academic performance which smacks of selection by another means.
Where election at 14 involves large numbers of pupils transferring to other schools the local schools would have to accommodate such movement; this may be possible in some areas through a reconfiguration of the existing local estate, and, in other cases may involve capital investment investment
The SDLP would oppose such a form of selection at age 14and would seek from the Minister guarantees that election at 14, including pupils changing schools, will take place for sound educational reasons.
Collaboration
The party has called for greater collaboration between schools based on local needs, to broaden opportunities for young people in all sectors, to deliver the Entitlement Framework, to improve use of resources and to try to keep open small rural schools.
In order to achieve collaboration it is necessary to ensure that the process of area based planning is fully operational as soon as possible. To date we have seen only the guidelines without the policy for sustainable schools which is the lynchpin of the process.
The process is already running behind schedule; further delay in providing information will only add to the already serious public anxiety which exists about reform and will further undermined confidence.
The SDLP would seek from the Minister the publication of the Sustainable Schools Policy without further delay.
The Legislative Process
The Minister says that she has consulted a wide range of educational stakeholders in an attempt to achieve consensus but there is still much work to be done in that area. It is doubtful whether the Minister has achieved the degree of consensus needed to carry an assembly vote, failure to carry such a vote would further undermine confidence in reform and increase public anxiety.
The SDLP would seek to know from the Minister how she will build the consensus necessary to carry an Assembly vote for the amendment of primary legislation to introduce bilateralism ( 50-30-20% phase out of academic selection) and non-academic admission criteria.
The Cost of Reform
The failure to cost reform and provide for it in the programme for government and in the budget is in itself a major obstacle to reform. The Minister has stated that she wants every school to become a good school and that the present capital programme will accommodate reform. It is clear that the fabric and standard of accommodation in many schools not currently included in the capital programme is urgently in need of refurbishment and that unless large scale investment takes place it will be impossible for all schools to be good schools in every sense of the word.
The SDLP proposes that the DE carry out an accurate costing of the capital and other costs of reform and seeks the necessary resources.
Non-academic Admission Criteria (Annexe A)
Non-academic admission criteria will be influenced by the boundaries established under Area Based Planning (ABP). Presumably open enrolment will end under ABP as the two concepts are difficult to reconcile. Some grammar schools presently have huge catchment areas and large numbers of feeder primary schools.
ABP will decrease the catchment areas and feeder primary schools of many grammar schools thus directing their target intakes to a more localised geographical area. Grammar schools which currently draw on large catchment areas and which admit most of their pupils from outside of the localised area will find it difficult admit 50% of their intake through academic selection which mean that they may eat even more into the intake of local non-selective schools.
The result of these factors will be to starve many non-selective schools of pupils, putting the viability of those schools at risk – this is currently a real fear among many highly successful non-selective schools.
The SDLP welcomes the use of disadvantaged criteria to help ensure a helathly social mix in schools but would like to see more detail on how it will be operated in practice.
The SDLP would like to hear, in detail, from the Minister how she will ensure the continued viablility of successful non-selective schools under non-adademic admissions criteria.
Rurality
DE say that it ‘will ensure the system of Transfer will take account of rurality’. The Minister’s paper does not address this issue in any detail and it is one which almost all of the educational stakeholders have expressed concern about. One way of addressing the problems of rurality would be to adjust sustainable schools viability quotas to ensure the survival of our smaller rural schools.