COMMITTEE FOR EDUCATION
Review of Post-Primary Education in Northern Ireland
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
(Catholic Heads Association)
Thursday 15 March 2001
COMMITTEE FOR EDUCATION
Review of Post-Primary Education in Northern Ireland
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
Thursday 15 March 2001
Members present:
Mr Kennedy (Chairperson)
Mr S Wilson (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Fee
Mr Gallagher
Mr Gibson
Mr Hamilton
Mr McElduff
Mr McHugh
Mr K Robinson
Witnesses:
Sr Christopher Hegarty RSM) Catholic Heads Association
Ms G Pehigrew)
Mr J Stewart)
Mr R Tierney)
The Chairperson:
I now welcome representatives of the Catholic Heads Association to our evidence session on the review of post-primary education. I invite you to give a short presentation, and we will then follow that with some questions.
Mr Tierney:
Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee. Our starting point is a concern for all young people, not just those who attend grammar schools. The primary objective for each of us - politicians, educators, trustees, governors, education boards and others supporting education - must be to ensure that all schools are highly regarded by the communities they serve. No school, or group of schools, should be regarded as better than any other as a result of the outcome of the selection procedure. The objective of all schools enjoying equality of status, with the resourses necessary to deliver high-quality education and meeting the diverse needs of all our young people in a manner which ensures that each child is given every opportunity to develop his or her talents, must drive forward this review to what is hoped will be a satisfactory conclusion.
In recent weeks there has been a growing appreciation of the complexities within this debate. The Minister's announcement this week of a delay in the publication of the review is welcomed by us.
We acknowledge the mature interchange of ideas, the initial hysteria having subsided. Most contributors to this debate are taking a very sensible, strategic and long-term view. The present educational system has made a considerable contribution to our community, though we accept that it has flaws. There is a need for change, and any change will have a significant impact.
There are so many interrelated issues, given the complex nature of our school system. Furthermore, there are features within our schools - tradition and ethos - which we would wish to preserve. However, no aspect of the present system should be retained if its retention is at a cost of disadvantaging others in the system. Grammar schools have made a positive contribution to removing some of the social divisions that have existed in our society. However, some young people have been affected by what has been regarded as "failure at 11". No child should feel any sense of failure at any stage in his or her educational career.
We also accept that many young people have been encouraged by the results they have achieved in the transfer test. That encouragement has enabled them to achieve a level of success that would not always have been achieved. Many young people have come to grammar schools with no tradition of academic study, from families where the daily struggle to survive left little opportunity to engage in so-called academic pursuits. These young people are able to feel equal to those who hitherto seemed to enjoy a privileged position in society. Speaking personally, and I am aware of members of this Committee who have shared this experience, I know that it was success at 11 that lifted our hopes and gave us the confidence, as well as the means, to aspire to significant positions in our community. Whatever conclusion this review comes to, we must ensure that such opportunities continue. Indeed, it is one of our major concerns that our educational provision must provide equality of access to all, irrespective of social class, wealth or any other advantage.
In all-ability, multi-purpose comprehensive schools many bright young people at 11, from the more socially disadvantaged groups, do not achieve the levels of success that young people from similar backgrounds achieve in our grammar schools. There is much evidence to confirm this - from English comprehensives, the Scottish system and schools in the Republic of Ireland
I will stay with this theme of advantage and disadvantage and examine a belief that education, in its present shape, favours a particular section of society. It is imperative that we serve the widest possible educational needs, and herein lies one of the most significant weaknesses of the present system. The curriculum, as presently structured, is primarily successful at addressing the academic needs of those who wish to pursue an academic education. It does not address adequately the vocational needs of our young people. I realise that other needs such as personal, social, moral, physical and religious are satisfied to varying degrees in our schools. It is only at post 16-level that we find the vocational and educational needs of students being addressed in a more positive and constructive manner. For many young people this is too late. For some students their educational experiences at Key Stage 3, and perhaps even at primary school level, have left them disillusioned with education.
The core issue, providing a real focus for this debate, is not grammar versus secondary. Instead, it is that the grammar sector achieves more success than the secondary sector because of the type of curriculum that is available and is the beneficiary in the transfer process. Why do we engage in a selection procedure, then expect young people to follow a very similar curriculum at different schools? For many young people our schools are not attractive and we need to ask why. If all schools deliver a common curriculum, simply eliminating selection and replacing it with an emphasis on choice does not address the issue. Choice in the current context is likely to be based on factors such as the schools reputation for academic success, rather than the basis of the schools ability or resources to meet particular needs of the students attending.
In that context it is unfair to expect a secondary school to compete for students against a grammar school. Furthermore, affording grammar schools the luxury of protected enrolment numbers places secondary schools at a considerable disadvantage.
Accepting that the context in which choices are made must be altered, our existing stock of schools is unlikely to change without a massive capital expenditure programme, and I do not believe that is possible.
I should like to focus on changing the curriculum. I acknowledge the current review of Key Stages 1 to 4 and the developments at post-16 level. In addition to content changes, there is a need to place more emphasis in primary-school provision on identifying pupils' abilities, strengths and interests, something the curriculum must reflect.
We must develop better forms of assessment in primary schools. There must be more consultation with the parents of their pupils, particularly regarding the options at post-primary level. We are not convinced we need to change the age of transfer. There are very strong arguments to continue with existing practice. Perhaps I could mention one very practical concern in this area. For pupils to attend a small rural primary school with one or two teachers for longer than seven years cannot be regarded as desirable or adequate preparation for the move to secondary level. That is not intended as any criticism of the primary-school teachers in question, who do an excellent job in very difficult circumstances.
If the concept of choice in post-primary education is to have any impact, we must develop meaningful alternatives at secondary level. How might this be put into practice? The strengths of existing schools could be retained with some providing education of a more academic bias which would continue until at least GCSE level, and other schools would provide a curriculum placing more emphasis on vocational and technical education. We even advocate the removal of the titles "grammar" and "secondary".
All schools within the system must enjoy equality of status. Indeed, every effort should be made to make the vocational and technical provision even more valued than a purely academic route. Of course, we envisage its leading on into higher education, with more emphasis on applied courses at third level.
Convincing parents to afford parity of esteem to the various options available is surely a major task for all. I believe it is not as difficult a challenge as some would suggest. It is misleading to believe that all parents desire their children to attend grammar schools. Many already exercise their right to opt out of the transfer procedure, and current figures indicate that 32% of parents in the Western Board area have done so.
Most parents make decisions based on their child's best interests. The number of parents dissatisfied with the current system is significantly lower than some have suggested, though I do not use that as an argument for retaining the status quo. Providing good quality choices goes a long way towards satisfying the demands of most parents and young people.
We believe that it is the future shape of the curriculum which is important. We must provide a curriculum that engages all young people, and only when that has been achieved will we be in a position to make final decisions about structures.
I know the Committee is looking at educational systems in other countries and ask it to bear in mind that such systems have not developed from the same starting point. We already have a somewhat unique system in place in Northern Ireland, and the difficult task facing us is how to create an alternative to the present system taking full account of our starting position. The task ahead is building on our current strengths - some which are not present in other countries' arrangements - and establishing a system providing real alternatives which fully address the wide-ranging needs of those students we endeavour to serve.
The implications for these proposals are in many respects far-reaching but nonetheless manageable. We are also aware that young people's needs do not remain constant as they progress through school life. Opportunities for increased mobility between schools must be established to allow interchange based on the premise of changing or developing educational needs.
In conclusion, we recognise we are engaged in a process which will shape education for generations to come. As an association we wish to affirm our commitment to contributing to it in a constructive and meaningful manner.
The Chairperson:
Thank you very much. I have one question and please understand that this is not personal or loaded in any sense. I read with interest your consultative response to the review body, and we have listened to your representations to this Committee. How difficult is it for you as an organisation given that the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS), the Catholic hierarchy and the political representatives of the Catholic community in the shape of Sinn Féin and the SDLP appear to be at variance with your views?
Mr Fee:
A grossly unfair question.
The Chairperson:
That is why I asked it here.
Mr Stuart:
I accept that it is a difficult one to answer. From my perspective I must point out that voluntary grammar schools - which includes the schools that I represent here - are the trustees of the school. The school's board of governors is a much more important factor than what you referred to as the stance taken by political parties and the Catholic Church. I do not see any difficulty with that. I have no difficulty in reconciling myself with the comments that have been made this morning, and I am prepared to be independent and speak about them in any quarter - be it secular or non-secular, religious or otherwise. I can see what you are getting at, but I am happy to accept that there has to be an independent approach to this. If you look at many parts of England and Scotland, political parties, the Catholic Church or the Catholic hierarchy have not influenced the comparable schools there.
Mr Tierney:
I do not think what we have said is that much at variance with the CCMS and the Catholic hierarchy. We may have a task to educate some of the political parties about what our views are.
Mr Fee:
Dodgy territory.
The Chairperson:
I thought you were reading from the Ulster Unionist Party manifesto.
Mr Tierney:
We expressed those views to the Catholic bishops when we met with them, and they were very receptive. If you read the document from the hierarchy it is certainly not at variance with what we said this morning.
Mr Gibson:
There are a couple of points that intrigue me, and when I asked the directors of education these questions during their presentation I got various answers.
You pointed out correctly that the central issue in this debate is how we educate children. Then you made the statement that we should not rush into introducing changes without any real focus. You made the point that the whole debate has suddenly become about structures rather than about education and that we must get it right. Out of the discussion with the directors there came one phrase which I found interesting. It sounds like a cliché, but I want to test you with it: "diversity of provision to provide equality of opportunity". It came from one of the directors - I do not remember which one, but it certainly was not the one in Omagh. How would you respond to that statement? How do we provide the best education for every youngster? How do we achieve that?
Ms Pettigrew:
I believe that the statement you just quoted probably summarises very well what Mr Tierney delivered in our submission. Our feeling is that the children have a huge range of different talents, strengths and interests. The present common curriculum operates as a straitjacket for many children. It does not give them the opportunities - certainly from 14 years old and onwards - to develop that.
Of course, the key problem at the heart of what you said is that for historical reasons in society the perception of parents and many people is that we are not currently talking about different systems but something that is better than another. Therefore there is a huge responsibility - no matter what change results from this debate and discussion - on everyone to ensure that the wider public and parents are informed, for example, with regard to the value of the alternatives to a very academic education. In many other countries technical and vocational options are highly valued and respected. When children and parents choose those they are not seen as opting for second best. Therefore they have diversity and equality as well.
Mr Gibson:
What are you doing to inform the general public that this is about education and not structures? Every meeting I went to evolved almost immediately into a structures debate. Education was not in the equation. If we are to bring the focus back to betterment, improvement and higher standards, what are you - probably one of the most influential groups to come before the Committee - doing?
Sr Christopher Hegarty:
It is a difficult matter, even in the current context of strongly academic schools that have diversified and offered vocational education.
Take GNVQs, for example. It really is an uphill struggle to convince parents that there is genuine parity. It will happen when the universities begin to recognise that those students who did GNVQs do equally as well as other undergraduates. It is a very slow process. We depend on many other people to make public statements and upon employers being educated too. There is a limited amount that we can do. We must do it with the parents.
It all hinges on this because if we are serious about diversification and equality of opportunity there must be a genuine appreciation that it is equal. There is an awful long way to go. For example, if we make a rough comparison with the German system where vocational education enjoys a much higher status, it is better resourced, and employers are trained to meet standards if they take young people on. We do not have a similar basis from which to start.
Mr Gallagher:
First, for the record - and this goes back to your question, Mr Chairman - the SDLP, lest there be any misunderstanding, recognise and respect the work being done in the schools that these people represent. We have always been very clear about that. We disagree about certain things, but the point is that we welcome the opportunity to discuss and debate these matters today. That has consistently been our position. It has not just cropped up at the table this morning; it goes back a long time.
Mr Tierney mentioned the opportunity for increased mobility between schools. I presume that he meant in particular the different types of schools that exist at secondary level. That is a good thing. In my view mobility has been pretty much a one way thing. It comes from the secondary sector and benefits the grammar sector. There has been little if any mobility the other way.
We are now in a situation, bearing in mind parity of esteem, where your schools have to spend time - very valuable teachers' and pupils' time - doing vocational things as part of A level such as assessing key skills, literacy, numeracy and ICT. Bearing all that in mind, what do you mean when you talk about increased mobility? Do you still see it following the trend that we have had or have you any new ideas about increased mobility for the benefit of both sectors?
Mr Tierney:
Well, I will take that a little bit further. You mentioned mobility being a one-way process. In some cases, it has been a two-way process, and pupils have gone from grammar to secondary.
Mr Gallagher:
Very small numbers.
Mr Tierney:
Very often it happens for the wrong reasons. Very often it was because they were failing. That certainly was not something that we would want to support. Your question comes back to the whole issue of the curriculum and the choices that are available and the strengths of the school. These are linked. We cannot look at any aspect of this in isolation. We cannot look at mobility and movement between schools without looking at the programmes that are available within the schools.
There are secondary schools that have tremendous strengths, strengths that grammar schools do not have. Those should be highlighted, and parents should be made fully aware of the strengths of the school. If a child progresses through either of the school systems that we envisage, and his parents become aware that he would be better located, in terms of the options that are available to him, the child then could move across. It is very much about informed choice.
However, when we talk about informed choice it goes right back to primary school. This is something that we would like to see developed much further - the whole processes of choice that ought to take place at the pre-secondary level.
The Chairperson:
Thank you very much indeed. May I remind members that our time is limited and encourage short questions and clear responses.
Mr S Wilson:
I have just two or three short questions. First, you rightly identify that there will always be some element of selection when people are transferring. It is unrealistic to have an educational system without some element of selection. In your paper you criticised the present system of selection. Will you give us some ideas - if we are going to continue with selection and if it is inevitable - how that selection would be effected, especially if you are going to have different schools in the post-primary sector?
Secondly, you touched on the whole question of parity of esteem between the different systems at post-primary level. What practical steps do you see being taken to ensure that parents, employers and the inspectors who go to the schools - I think they are the ones who least need to be convinced, according to Gallagher - promote that parity of esteem between the different school systems?
Mr Stuart:
Perhaps I could take the issue of parity of esteem between different school systems. It strikes me that it varies a lot in Northern Ireland itself. In some areas secondary schools are held in very high esteem. There are instances that I have come across of parents - not for the wrong reasons - choosing to move a child to a secondary school because it provided the type of education that led towards the possibility of an HND at the University of Ulster. The parents recognised that that was the way forward. There is some evidence that that situation is already there, to a certain extent.
Mr S Wilson:
The scramble for school places after the 11-plus, especially in the greater Belfast area, would indicate that that is not always the case.
Mr Stuart:
It is probably more of a rural example. A considerable time needs to elapse and within that time, there ought to be resources provided for those non-academic schools which will provide the technical/vocational style of approach.
These schools should be given the resources so that they are held in very high esteem by parents and by those "movers and shakers" in our society - if I can use that term - who will inevitably make the decisions that influence other people in the choice of schools.
Mr S Wilson:
It is not just a question of money. Very often secondary schools are getting most of the money through targeting social need funds, and so on. Can this really be eradicated by throwing more money at schools?
Mr Stuart:
It can, in a selective way. Of course, it was very focused and prioritised, not necessarily in the area of special needs but as regards strengths that schools could identify and which they could use to identify themselves as schools held in high esteem.
Sr Christopher Hegarty:
Up until now, the curriculum at Key Stages 3 and 4 has been very prescriptive for both schools. In the last couple of years, the school has been able to disapply at Key Stage 4. That is beginning to be worked on in the same way as the post-GCSE GNVQ became developed in some schools as something that could attract both able students and students who were felt to be unable to do A levels.
There could be an imaginative look at the kind of vocational courses at GCSE level that would really engage students who are not turned on by the present GCSE. It is something to do with seeing the difference that it makes and then having properly set up resourced courses; and students who would not normally come to school being able to come to school, attend, apply and achieve.
That is the way to build it up so that it will lead on to respectable post-GCSE courses. Parents will then begin to value alternative routes as something that can really engage their children. What we are really saying is that youngsters who are lost in the system are lost to all of us and to the whole economy and society. Up to now, the effort has been put into maintaining academic, GCSE courses rather than into the research for other types of courses.
Ms Pettigrew:
With regard to the first point you raised about the primary school, within the present system there is an opportunity for a request to be made for special consideration. Those involved in that will know that, when that is the case, a wealth of information comes from the primary schools in relation to different assessments in order to support the view of the primary school about suitability or otherwise of the child for the kind of academic education.
At the moment the current transfer procedure does not build on or use to best advantage the ongoing assessment that is present within the primary school. By developing the present system, there could be information available to parents to help them make the kind of informed choice we would like to see.
Mr McHugh:
You are very welcome and your views are also very welcome, even if the idea of educating Sinn Féin, as a party, to your point of view is maybe not so. But you can try your skills on the Minister if you like. Even the Deputy Chairperson will tell you that Mr Barry McElduff and I are only his henchmen.
You said that the 32% in the western area have not gone ahead with the transfer process. Is that reflective of parents not wanting to put their children through that process and ending up failures as the large percentage does? How do you see that being resolved if we do not move from what we are now? Grammar schools would be happy enough to continue with what we have at present or some sort of selection process.
Grammar schools have focused on academic education to the exclusion of life skills and personal and pastoral education. We have discussed the selection process at length, but what direction will education take after selection?
Mr Tierney:
There is no information on how the figure of 32% is arrived at. Many parents make an informed decision. It is not a question of failing their children, as parents are fully aware of their child's abilities and know that a certain kind of education is not suited to him or her.
You said that the emphasis in grammar schools is on academic education at the expense of personal and pastoral education. Grammar schools pay as much attention to pupils' personal and social development as do secondary schools. All schools concentrate on preparing children for life. Their emphasis is not purely on the academic. Secondary schools must deliver the same curriculum as grammar schools, yet those children are told at 11 that they are not suitable for such a programme.
Mr McHugh:
How did we reach 32%? Is that normal?
Mr Tierney:
It is normal. It is always around that figure.
Mr Fee:
Grammar schools seem to have been the victims of their own success. No one doubts the standard and quality of the education provided in grammar schools, and we should do nothing to impair it. Nonetheless, many parents and children want access to that type of education, and therein lies the problem. I accept that you fully recognise your responsibilities to address equality and social justice. That is the nub of the debate. The consensus seems to be that the 11-plus is too flawed to continue.
Should we move to selection based on continuous assessment or should we keep an academic test? There are first-class, all-ability, non-selective, co-education at secondary schools in Newry and Armagh which are oversubscribed every year. Should we not replicate that to have selection in schools rather than selection between schools?
Sr Christopher Hegarty:
We recognise all the evils of the 11-plus system when children are leaving primary school for secondary school. Primary school education must be re-examined and provided with better resources to offer a broader curriculum for children who opted out - or who were opted out - under the 11-plus system at an early stage. Such a curriculum would be a better way of assessing what stage children are at, and parents and schools could then advise them. We do not envisage, at least in the early years of secondary education, a conflict between academic and vocational education.
Perhaps we could have all-ability learning for the first three or four years. Children will then opt for the subjects best suited to their strengths. The proposed curriculum at Key Stage 4 has removed the prescription which was in force for a number of years, and it tells schools that they can tailor their curriculum to suit children's abilities. If every school is doing that, there must be a way in which they can identify particular strengths, work towards them, and advertise themselves on the basis of those strengths.
Mr Fee:
As happens in the German model?
Sr Christopher Hegarty:
Not necessarily. The German model is really separating children at age 11. No one would be talking about children choosing vocational or academic education routes before age 14. However, if schools are going to develop a variety of models from ages 14 to 19, you cannot have every school setting out to meet the needs of a broad section. There must be a need for schools to develop particular programmes. The school you mentioned in Ballygawley, or the school in Armagh, have been particularly successful, but the emphasis has still been on the academic side and trying to fit all children into the academic side. We are now looking at the option of offering a broader range of education.
There must be a way in which schools can have particular specialisms. This would enable parents and children to make choices based on the kind of thorough assessment the children would have at age 14 of their abilities and how best to meet their needs in the future.
Mr Fee:
So would the common curriculum be dropped at a certain point?
Sr Christopher Hegarty:
If, according to the new proposals, the common curriculum is to be dropped, and schools are given the option to create their own curriculums, will they choose a whole range of vocational and academic subjects, or will they specialise?
Mr Tierney:
You talked about schools in Keady, Ballygawley and Maghera as examples of schools that have achieved a considerable degree of success. However, they did not have to fit into an existing structure, and one of the complexities of this issue is trying to fit a system into an existing structure.
Sr Christopher Hegarty:
The demographics and the location of the schools are important factors also.
Mr Stuart:
In areas of falling population, one all-ability school should be able to cope with the full range of opportunities, but that would depend on the demographic structure.
Mr McElduff:
Go raibh maith agat. It is always interesting when you, Mr Chairman, interpret the views of Sinn Féin and the SDLP. I say that in a neutral way.
The Chairperson:
And vice versa. I have had that experience too.
Mr McElduff:
I have had a very good experience of coming through the Catholic grammar system. Perhaps that is an indictment in some peoples' minds of the system. However, for me it is a commendation. I can appreciate the real concern on the part of education providers about the pace of the debate. The Catholic Heads Association might reasonably want to say "Slow down, hold on a minute, let us look at this in a much more deliberative way over a longer period of time". I can appreciate why you would say that. Nonetheless, would the association accept that there is an urgent need to get rid of the 11-plus as it is a source of trauma and great distress to families and teachers. Would you accept that in the short term we should be moving, without delay, to put that in the dustbin of history?
Mr Tierney:
We would agree with that. I said at the outset that we are not here to defend the transfer test as it currently exists. We want to emphasise the fact that no child should feel any sense of failure. We are particularly aware of this sense of failure when we get phone calls from parents who are very disappointed after places in schools have been allocated. We have to explain how a child with a C1 or a C2 result gets into a school, yet the child next door with the same qualification does not. It is particularly difficult when a child may get into a school on the basis of the fact that he is older or that his father may have been a past pupil. The criteria are very arbitrary, and they create injustice.
Mr K Robinson:
I refer to your comments about more consultation with the parents of children at primary schools. I am a former primary school principal who spent hours, days and weeks advising parents about the benefits of secondary schools. However, the parents would not take my professional advice because they always held out hope of their child getting into a grammar school. I was slightly surprised to find children with C1s and C2s getting into grammar schools. That is not beneficial to the child, to the school that the child goes to or to the school that was denied that child.
The Department of Education is trying to encourage parents to take reasonable steps to look at their child's ability and then to choose the options available to the children in the future. Everyone knows what the academic route to a grammar school entails. We talk glibly about vocational schools. That is bandied about all the time. What is your understanding of vocational education, and how do you see it develop when and if the present system is changed?
Mr Tierney:
The first part of your question relates to the primary school principal and how he or she tries to guide parents' choices. It is difficult for primary school principals to guide parents because there are no choices to be made. The parents are not making choices. The choices are made for the parents by the outcome of the transfer test. Any talk about choices in the present system is unrealistic.
If there were choices to be made the menu does not offer a lot of choice. At present, what the secondary school is offering does not differ very much from what is available in a grammar school.
We must look to the future and examine the options and the sorts of programmes that will be available to young people in the non-academic sector. There are no solutions to that. There needs to be a lot more research into what vocational education is available and what the vocational needs are. The needs of society, employers and skills that young people going into the world of employment need - be it ICT or practical skills - must be identified. Society still needs tradesmen, and young people are not adequately prepared for those kinds of, what I call, professions. A plumber is now paid a professional rate.
The public needs to be educated, but the debate has moved on a lot in the past six months. The question was raised earlier of what can be done to move the thinking of the community forward. However, I think that the community's thinking on this issue has moved forward considerably. When we began our report there was an anti-11-plus, almost anti-grammar school feeling. We felt very much under attack. However, people are now standing back and taking a more objective view. People are now looking at the long term needs of all young people.
Sr Christopher Hegarty:
There are differences between an A-level business studies course and a GNVQ business studies course. One is theoretically based and the other involves working on case studies from businesses, going out on ongoing work experience and meeting people from businesses who come to the schools. There is more of an insight provided into how the different aspects of businesses are run.
The same thing applies if we talk about built environment and, for example, an A-level technology course. Models show the differences between the GNVQ and the GCSE or A level routes. We should build on the situation where children see more relevance in what they are learning and are in more day-to-day contact with the realities of the work place and the people who are involved in it. The children can learn from real life experiences rather than from a teacher. It is a different experience, and it is hoped that vocational education fires the child with enthusiasm. Core elements will have to be examined in both areas, but a curriculum that engages the pupils is the difference.
Mr K Robinson:
The proof of the pudding is at the school gate. When two mothers meet outside and their children have gone down the two routes you have just described, who comes out on top?
Sr Christopher Hegarty:
In my school they both come out on top. The difference for parents is seeing youngsters who were disaffected becoming interested.
Mr K Robinson:
You see that from an educational point of view. However, if two parents are talking at the school gate which parent is puffed out with pride as her child is doing a course which is deemed in her eyes, and possibly in the eyes of society, as more valuable?
Sr Christopher Hegarty:
We are talking about all schools as secondary schools rather than a commonality in Key Stage 3. You mentioned trying to advise parents in primary schools. If parents have a choice between grammar and secondary they will aspire to the grammar school because it is perceived to be better.
Mr K Robinson:
In the Greater Belfast area there is a pecking order of grammar schools and a pecking order of secondary schools. The parents know that pecking order regardless of what part of the city they come from. That is why I say the proof of the pudding is at the school gate as many decisions are made there rather than in the principal's office.
Sr Christopher Hegarty:
It is a long process.
Mr S Wilson:
Have you noticed a change in attitude at higher-education level towards GNVQ and A level?
Sr Christopher Hegarty:
Yes. In the beginning schools found it very difficult because they encouraged young people to study these courses but when they went to open days people would say that they had never heard of them, or the admissions officer would know about them but the department would not. Queen's University has made great strides. Initially the University of Ulster came on board before Queen's did. Some students have gone down the GNVQ route into Queen's University to follow psychology courses. GNVQs are subject specific so if someone takes a GNVQ in business they will follow a business-related course. With the University of Ulster there may be some isms about paramedical subjects because they may ask if there is enough science involved and if an A level was taken along with it. However, they are improving. The universities in England made the change very early.
The GNVQ grading has now been changed to come into line with A level. Prior to that the grading was a distinction, merit or pass, and no one knew if a distinction was an A, B or C. Now A levels will have the same modular system as GNVQs. The key skills have now come from GNVQ to A level. It will make a difference to see youngsters becoming interested in those courses, but it will be slow.
Mr Gibson:
I know I have only 30 seconds, but for the edification of everyone, can you explain briefly the bilateral system in Strabane?
Mr Tierney:
Strabane does not have a Catholic boys' grammar school. There is a girls' grammar school, and there are two secondary schools. Their plan is to educate all levels with an all-ability secondary school. I assume that there will also be a form of selection and that children will be selected for a grammar-type stream school if we retain the existing system.
Mr Gibson:
The story is that they have retained the separate grammar school or they are running a parallel grammar school to it.
Mr Tierney:
You will know more about it because you are on the board of governors of one of the schools.
Sr Christopher Hegarty:
In Strabane the grammar school had 460 pupils, with 60 students at A level. St Colman's boys school had about 900 pupils. The issue was being able to provide a suitable A level course.
The students will be put together in one building with three separate units - Key Stage 3, Key Stage 4 and a post-GCSE unit. Within the Key Stage 3 unit 25% will be selected on the basis of the outcome of their 11-plus examination. The school can be compared to Maghera or Lagan College.
Mr Gibson:
It will have one school uniform but three different levels.
Mr Tierney:
I also note the new site and building. That is a huge capital investment.
The Chairperson:
May I express my thanks to all of you for your presence here today. It has been a very interesting exchange of views.
15 March 2001 / Menu