UUP position paper on post-primary transfer

In place of uncertainty

The UUP has consistently accepted that there is a case for replacing the existing transfer test. In the Party’s official response to Burns, it was stated that “ there are significant problems with the present transfer arrangements”. However, it is now clear that appropriate post-primary transfer arrangements will not be in place for 2011. This being so, we believe that serious consideration should be given to extending – for a strictly limited period of time – the life of the existing transfer procedure in order to provide certainty for parents, pupils and schools.

Fundamental flaws in the Minister’s approach

The Minister’s routinely stated view that over-subscription will not occur is disingenuous. In the Newsletter and Irish News on 9 th May 2008, the Minister said: “it is unlikely that there will be oversubscription”. NIHRC, however, is on the record as saying “in practice, all grammars” are oversubscribed. The very same advice was given to parents by the Minister’s Department in a statement of 3 rd February 2008: “in particular, many grammar schools may be over-subscribed”. The Minister’s failure to acknowledge – never mind address – the issue of oversubscription entirely undermines her whole approach to the issue of post-primary transfer.

The contention that the removal of academic selection will equate to equal educational provision and opportunity for all children is a gross – and perhaps deliberate – inaccuracy. The Scottish experience demonstrates the extent to which this is an untruth. The 2004 Report of the previous Scottish Executive Ambitious, Excellent Schools: Our Agenda for Action states that “the performance of the lowest attaining 20% of pupils has remained flat in recent years and around 15% of 16-19 year olds are not in education, employment or training”. The Report’s Foreword expresses the views of the then Labour and Liberal Democrat Education Ministers: “too many leave school with too little”. It particularly noted that “many boys are underachieving”. The Scottish experience demonstrates the fallacy of any belief that removing academic selection will address educational underachievement.

The November 2006 House of Commons Public Accounts Committee Report on Literacy in Northern Ireland Schools highlighted that “at Key Stage 2 nearly a quarter of children … left primary school in 2004-05 with literacy skills below the standard level”. The ideological obsession with the need to change post-primary transfer arrangements has detracted from the real educational and equality challenges in the primary sector.

Implications of the Minister’s acceptance of a transition period

The Minister’s acceptance, in her latest proposals, of the need for a transitional period is significant. This indicates that she has not provided principals, teachers or educational administrators with the time or detail required to move to a new post-primary transfer arrangement. It is in light of this that the UUP suggests the need for maintaining the existing transfer test for a limited period of time.

Similarly significant is the Minister’s acceptance that CCEA can – despite her previous denials – create a standard test which will not distort teaching in the later years of primary school. Having thus accepted the principle that a transfer test is possible without such distortion, the proposed CCEA test should now be considered as a potential replacement for the existing transfer test.

However, it is crucial that CCEA’s formulation of the test is not rushed. The Minister’s proposal to introduce this test in 2011 is little short of reckless. The recent Report of the House of Commons Children, Schools and Families Committee Testing and Assessment noted with regards to national tests, “our predecessors warned the Government about bringing in new tests with undue haste. We recommend that the Government allows sufficient time for a full pilot of the new single-level tests and ensures that any issues and problems arising out of that pilot are fully addressed before any formal roll-out of the new regime to schools”. The UUP strongly urges that this advice is followed with regards to the proposed CCEA standard test for post-primary transfer.

A way forward – promoting diversity, excellence and choice

The CCEA standard test – after pilots and any necessary modifications – could potentially become the post-primary transfer test, replacing the existing test. Alongside a robust pupil profile (including results of testing on literacy and numeracy) and a statement of advice to parents from a post-primary school, the UUP contends that the use of academic criteria can have an important role in matching the talents and aptitudes of pupils to the most appropriate post-primary school.

In giving post-primary schools the freedom to use academic criteria, consideration should be given to extending this principle. We note that specialist schools in England have the facility of selecting 10% of their pupils on the basis of aptitude in the relevant specialism. We are also mindful that some non-grammars have streams oriented towards A Levels. In view of the fact that the Minister’s proposals have introduced the concept of bilateralism into the debate, the UUP would support consideration of extending the freedom to post-primary schools which presently do not use academic criteria in the transfer procedure to move to a bilateral model.

A key part of the UUP’s post-primary strategy is the radical extension of the specialist schools programme, with the aim of making every post-primary outside the grammar sector a specialist school. We note with disappointment that of Northern Ireland’s 226 post-primary schools, only 25 have specialist status. This compares very unfavourably with the 86% in England. Specialist schools, according to Ofsted, establish a “distinctive identity”. They have a proven track record of increasing educational achievement amongst pupils with Free School Meal Entitlement. They narrow the performance gap between boys and girls. And, in England, 60.6% of pupils in specialist schools achieve five A*-Cs at GCSE compared to 48.3% in non-specialist schools. We therefore believe that such a radical expansion of the specialist schools programme would dramatically increase diversity, excellence and choice in the post-primary sector.

The UUP remains to be convinced by the calls to cap the proportion of grammar school entrants. While conscious of the need to preserve academic standards, it would be our contention that principals and boards of governors are better placed to judge this rather than the Education Minister, the Department or a quango such as the proposed ESA. There is a strong argument for allowing successful schools (of whatever sector) to expand in response to parental choice. Again, principals and boards of governors are best placed to judge striking the proper balance between pupil numbers and maintenance of ethos.

UUP - Addendum to discussion

Age of transfer

During the debate in closed session of the Committee for Education, the question of transfer at age 14 was raised by a number of members. There was a suggestion that consensus had previously been reached on this matter. The UUP wishes to make clear that this is not the case.

Whilst the UUP can agree that 14 is an age at which important educational decisions are made and that pupils should play a central role in such decisions, it does not follow that academic selection at 14 or transfer at 14 is the optimal solution.

The UUP believes that the majority of children will transfer at the age of 11, that parents are best placed to make decisions on the most appropriate school for their children and that academic criteria will continue to play an important part in this decision.

Although the demographic downturn might provide the opportunity to establish middle schools, the challenge of identifying such schools from the existing school estate and the complexities with regard to the need to transfer teachers to such schools presents almost insurmountable logistical difficulties in the time scale envisaged and offers no clear educational advantage.

The UUP believes that changing school at 11, 14 coupled with the possibility of leaving full time education at 16 presents formidable challenges to young people attempting to develop their social skills. These are particularly sensitive times for our young people and they need all the support and continuity the system can deliver. Whilst we would welcome greater flexibility in transfer arrangements at age 14 for those that would benefit from it, we believe that schools with a strong ethos are particularly effective at developing individual students and that ethos is best developed in schools with longer attendance periods.

We do accept that schools operating in the Dickson plan do so successfully and schools such as Craigavon High School provide significant pastoral care to their pupils but we would be interested in proposals which would extend such care to pupils transferring to other educational pathways at age 16. We urgently await a 14-19 year strategy and imaginative ways of integrating the post primary education sector with the Further Education sector.

Time scale

Finally, the UUP believes that even if political agreement could be reached, there is insufficient time in the time scale envisaged to implement any significant change. The UUP calls for a 3 year period of reflection with no predetermined outcomes to provide sufficient time for a fundamental review of the educational system. No useful purpose is served rushing into proposals which carry a very high level of risk and little popular support.

UUP Addendum

Mervyn Storey
Chairman of Committee for Education
Parliament Buildings
Stormont
July 4th, 2008

UUP Position Papers on Educational Reform – July 2008

Dear Mervyn,

There has been some criticism of the Committee for Education and certain member parties by the Minister for Education about the lack of proposals or contribution to the education debate.

Whilst we believe that responsibility for tabling such proposals properly resides with the Minister for Education, we have attempted to make a serious and considered contribution to the debate within the closed session discussions of the committee.

Obviously, given the time scale, the dynamic nature of the debate and the sheer complexity of the interlinked issues, it was not possibility to give a fully definitive response.

However, the Ulster Unionist Party has attempted to explain its thinking, respond imaginatively to the suggestions of others and to find ways to assist in breaking the political impasse.

The clerk had a difficult job in capturing the precise nature of the interactions in written word, but I believe it was a useful exercise to do so. We are happy that our views are made public but wish to place on the record that the discussions took place within the context of an attempt to explore different options and to think outside the box.

Only time will tell if our collective considerations will bear closer examination.

Yours sincerely

Basil McCrea MLA
Ulster Unionist Party
Spokesman for Education