Northern Ireland Assembly

Mr Ervine:

I may be wrong, but there seems to be a contradiction in terms here. The Member cannot say that 65% are being branded as failures and then go on to explain why they are failures.

Mr K Robinson:

I did not say that they were failures; I said that some people look upon them as failures. I certainly do not look upon them as failures.

Did these children commence the process of failure at the 11-plus stage, or is there a more fundamental flaw in our educational system? Is it a flaw that Gallagher was never required to explore? Nevertheless, it may be something that should inform our deliberations.

We also need to study carefully the methods of teaching and learning which provide boys and girls with the most successful outcomes. Boys and girls have different ways of learning. Teachers will tell one that that is naturally so, but there is research available which could help us identify the different methods by which either a boy or a girl could be more successful in their learning outcomes.

We also need to identify the social settings which either enhance or inhibit access to education and educational success. Billy Hutchinson referred to some of the problems that currently exist in parts of Belfast. There are reasons for these problems; we must identify those reasons and find solutions to them.

There are other instances where children who are faced with the same difficulties appear to succeed. What is making them succeed? Is it the quality of teaching? Is it the ethos in the home? Is it their peer group? Let us develop those areas and see what we come up with.

Ms McWilliams:

The Member talks about the quality of teaching, the ethos in the home and the infrastructure in the wider social society. Can he prioritise those factors or tell the House which of them is the major cause of the problem. Members may remember that I was once criticised for helping my children write a letter to Santa Claus.

Madam Deputy Speaker:

I ask the Member to be brief. He has 30 seconds left.

Mr K Robinson:

I have been generous to a fault, as Members are aware.

Mr Wells:

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr Robinson has given way, and some valuable points have been raised, but when the Member gave way the clock did not stop. I think that that will deter other Members from giving way. In this type of debate there should be the flexibility to take interventions.

Madam Deputy Speaker:

I am aware of the time limitations, but I am also aware of the number of people who want to speak in this debate. I asked Members beforehand to reduce their speeches to being less than 10 minutes.

Mr K Robinson:

In response to Ms McWilliams' question, it is a combination of all the factors I mentioned. We also need to address the issue of when young people should be introduced to a formal education system. Our continental cousins leave that until later, and young people there appear to be equally as successful at the age of 11, 14, 16, or whatever.

I welcome the completion of the Gallagher Report and look forward to a rational debate informed in part by the report's contents. I trust that those who have an immediate and, to some degree, a vested interest in the current secondary arrangements will look beyond those and ensure that future arrangements, whatever they are, take into account the totality of our current education framework. We can no longer afford to compartmentalise our system from pre-school to primary to secondary, and so on.

Madam Deputy Speaker:

The Member's time is up.

Mr K Robinson:

You were generous with the Chairman, Madam Deputy Speaker. He was allowed to speak for an extra minute. I have been generous to other Members, and I have almost finished.

Madam Deputy Speaker:

Mr Robinson, your time is up.

Ms Lewsley:

Education is a vital element in society, coming close in importance to food and shelter. It is also a basic human right.

7.00 pm

I do not need to tell Members about the key role which education plays in the development of young members of society, second in influence only to the family and the values that are taught there. Our aim should be to encourage children to develop their full potential in academic, sporting, vocational, musical, artistic or other abilities, and to cope with whatever limitations or difficulties they may encounter.

We need to prepare the child to play a full role in society and in the economy as a responsible, confident participant, aware of his or her rights and responsibilities and those of others. We need to equip children with the skills necessary to gain employment and live as independently as possible, and not to brand them as failures at the tender age of 11. My party has been opposed to the 11-plus for many years on the grounds that it is unfair, divisive, ineffective and damaging. It is incompatible with the principles I previously mentioned, to brand a majority of children as failures and damage their self-esteem, often with lasting effects. As Ms McWilliams has already mentioned, it is the only examination where there is no opportunity to resit, unlike GCSEs, NVQs or A levels.

It is not just about exams. For many children the primary seven year is very traumatic. They sit the exam in November and have to wait until February for the results. Then they have another wait to find out if they have been accepted at the school of their choice. Many have to wait for weeks after that to find out which school they can go to. Employing tutors outside school hours to coach children, particularly in the 11-plus, adds to the pressure the child already feels in taking the test. It also puts a financial strain on families on low incomes or on benefits, who cannot afford to take this measure to give their child a better chance of success in the exam. It creates a two-tier system.

We should have equality of opportunity, which will tackle the issues of underachievement, rural schools, nursery education, special needs, et cetera. We must also ensure that we target social need. We need research and wide-ranging consultation on how to develop a fairer system of transfer to second-level education that takes into account the child's abilities and reflects the child's needs and parental choice. These consultations should ensure that everyone, from the users to the people who deliver the education services, has input into that process. The review body will have a vital role to play on consultation. I hope that that will enable it to make well-informed recommendations at the end. While this debate focuses particularly on the 11-plus, it cannot be seen in isolation. There needs to be a complete overview of the education system from pre-nursery through to third-level education.

We need second-level education that gives the same weight to a vocational route as an academic route. We have become a league table-driven society geared too much towards academia, thus showing that where we have a high level of excellence we also have a very high level of underachievement. We have the opportunity now to develop a system of education that is second to none. We need to move away from perpetual testing to perpetual teaching. We need to take up the challenge now to ensure equity for the children of the future. I support the motion.

Mr Wells:

I am somewhat concerned about the way this debate is going. It seems to be a debate between the attractions of the selective system that we have at the minute, namely the 11-plus, and some system of comprehensive education where there is no selection. Members may be surprised to hear this from a member of the Democratic Unionist Party, but there is an alternative. There is an alternative that achieves excellent results and is almost universally popular with parents, many of whom opt in to the system, and which guarantees that a much higher proportion of children enter grammar school education. That system is known as the Dickson plan. I have first-hand experience of the Dickson plan, as do my children and my wife. It is a model that the Assembly should look at very seriously.

For the benefit of Members who do not know a lot about the Dickson plan, let me explain what happens. Under the Dickson plan, which operates in Craigavon, there is no selection at age 11. All children move from primary schools straight into what are called junior high schools. The children spend three years in the junior high, and at the end of the third year certain children go on to grammar school while others go on to the senior high.

But the major difference between that system and the 11-plus is that the children are not examined on the basis of two two-hour papers. I am very worried to find myself agreeing with Ms Monica McWilliams this evening: it is absolutely brutal to decide a child's future on the basis of two two-hour papers. We should not inflict that on any of our children. My two are going to Dickson plan schools, and while their friends in the neighbouring villages are cramming their minds with all the options that they might encounter in the 11-plus exam, my children are wondering what all the fuss is about. They are simply enjoying their education. We should consign the 11-plus system to the dustbin. I simply cannot see how it is fair that a child's entire future should be determined at that age.

The Dickson plan does not judge children on the basis of two or three exams. It involves at least ten exams combined with a strong element of continuous assessment from the pupil's first year. Therefore any child who has ability and who genuinely wants a grammar school education has an excellent opportunity to receive one. The proof of the Dickson plan pudding is in the eating. Parents whose children live in Craigavon have the choice to opt out. They can send their children to Banbridge, Lisburn or Dungannon, and during the first stages of the implementation of the Dickson plan in the late '60s, many parents did that. They took their children out of Craigavon and they sent them to Friends School or to Wallace High School in Lisburn, or to St Catherine's College in Armagh, in order to avoid the system. Slowly but surely, though, the penny began to drop and parents realised that the Dickson plan was much fairer. It guaranteed a grammar school education for far more children, and its results were excellent. Bit by bit, more children chose the system to the extent that now over 95% of the parents who have that choice in the Craigavon area opt for the Dickson plan. Indeed, in peripheral areas, such as Waringstown, Moira and Moy, children are actually sent in to the Dickson area from outlying areas to enjoy the benefits of that particular plan.

What worries me about the Gallagher Report is that it seems to have simply overlooked the benefits of that particular option. Gallagher states that pupils who were not selected at age 14 years were not as well served by the system. That one line seems to dismiss the undoubted benefits of this option. Surely the solution is not to throw the baby out with the bath water by abolishing a universally popular system but to improve the standard of education for those at the senior highs.

Dickson still involves an element of selection. But if one accepts that there has to be selection somewhere along the line, this is the most equitable approach. It is perhaps no coincidence that many of the schools under the Dickson plan have featured at the top of league tables for academic performance. Some Members will say that those tables mean very little, and I accept that they are open to interpretation, but it is clear that schools under the Dickson plan are not at a disadvantage. Because of the way in which Dickson is modelled, more children have the opportunity to go to a grammar school and to achieve their academic optimum.

I urge the Chairman of the Education Committee, and perhaps some of its members, to go to some of those schools, and to see what is going on. First, he will find that they are all packed. Lurgan Junior High, for instance, has had it highest enrolment ever this year. Lurgan College is bursting at the seams, as is St Michael's, Lurgan. All these schools are bucking the trend of declining enrolment elsewhere, because so many parents want their children to be educated under the Dickson system.

While one may hear people like Mr Billy Hutchinson and Ms McWilliams complaining about the systems in their areas, one will not hear those complaints where people are being educated under the Dickson plan. One will not hear those complaints in Craigavon. People are content.

Finally, any system that produced Stephen Grimason and Noel McAdam, amongst many others, cannot be all bad.

Mr Kennedy:

I was very interested in what the Member said up until his final paragraph - and some of the comparisons he was putting forward. Would he not accept that there is a potential problem in the cost of the Dickson plan and in extending it to other parts of Northern Ireland? In a peculiar sense, it has worked very well, and I accept that because I have some experience of it. It has worked very well in Craigavon, but it may not transfer to other parts of Northern Ireland.

Mr Wells:

The hon Member makes a very valid point. At the very least, Tony Gallagher should have costed that option and looked to see whether it was viable to cover all of Northern Ireland.

What worries me is that a scheme, which seems so successful and popular, has been bypassed and simply brushed aside by means of two lines in his report. I do not think that they have looked at the Dickson plan carefully enough. Frankly, the only people who can really speak about the plan with authority are those who have either gone through the system or whose children are presently in it. Those people have first hand experience of the system. I do not think that Gallagher spent enough time in Craigavon talking to parents and teachers to find out what makes the Dickson plan work so well.

Let us get away from the idea that there are only two options - the full comprehensive education system and the present system. There is a another system that is fair, more popular, and which I believe leads to much better education for our children. From my experience we could do a lot worse than adopt it for this Province.

Mr McElduff:

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the tenor and spirit of the motion. The effects of the selection system for secondary education in the Six Counties, and the future provision of an appropriate system of education aimed at cherishing all of the children equally, challenges each of us intellectually. We are talking about all children, not just those of higher ability or social advantage.

I believe that, collectively, we possess the necessary genius and ability to design a suitable system of post-primary education that will serve to replace the transfer test once and for all. I am mindful of the damage that the present system has inflicted and I join with others in commending Prof Gallagher who has done a tremendous service to us by producing a comprehensive volume of important research identifying the issues and some, but not all, alternative models.

As Gaeilge, very briefly, tacaím le spiorad agus le brí an rúin. Is cóir go ndéanfaí tuairisc an Ollaimh Gallagher a phlé i gcruinniú iomlán den Tionól. Creidim go tréan go gcaithfidh rannpháirtíocht iomlán a bheith ag an phobal sa díospóireacht seo. Leoga, tá sé fíorthábhachtach má táimid le teacht ar chóras oideachais a thugann a gceart agus a gcothrom do iomlán ár gcuid bpáistí, chan amháin dóibh sin a bhfuil ardéirim nó buntáiste sóisialta acu.

Ón tús, ba mhaith liom moladh leis an Ollamh Gallagher agus leis an Ollamh Smith. Rinne siad taighde mór a chuideoidh le nádúr agus le cúrsa ár n-oideachais iarbhunscoile a mhúnlú sa todhchaí.

I want to commend Mr Tommy Gallagher, who tabled the motion. I think it is appropriate that the issue should be widened at this stage to include Members not on the Education Committee. After all, this is the single most important issue faced by educational providers and policy makers for many decades. I appreciate the earliness of the debate, but I still think that we will revisit it in plenary format in the future.

In recognising this, it behoves all of us to get it right, and we owe it to future generations of school children to do so. I am certain that there is a tremendous appetite out there for people to become involved. There is no doubt about that.

7.15 pm

At a recent ceremony in Omagh to mark the amalgamation of schools into the Sacred Heart College, a principal talked to me about the appetite of people to have their voices heard. It is appropriate that we call for parents, pupils, teachers, employers and the business, community and voluntary sectors to become involved - anyone with an interest in the matter.

The Gallagher Report has identified many key issues - what has become known as the long tail of relatively low-achieving schools which sit alongside high-achieving schools, and the low self-esteem of pupils who do not secure a grammar school place. The distortion of the curriculum has been referred to by other Members. The displacement of key areas of the curriculum has contributed to a situation where, for example, creative writing is underdeveloped and there is tremendous pressure on pupils and teachers to prepare, in a narrow curricular sense, for the 11-plus. This denies pupils a holistic educational experience, or a broad and balanced curriculum, if that is a better definition. The sense of failure is unbearable for 11-year-old children and their families. I have often heard young ones talk about it as "the worst day of my life". Teachers at secondary schools are often left to their own devices to rebuild pupils' self-confidence.

It is appropriate to acknowledge the valuable work of teachers, not least in the secondary sector where teaching styles and methods have to accommodate children across a wide spectrum of ability level, which is not necessarily replicated in grammar schools. However, I want to pay tribute to all teachers.

The inability of many families to afford £15 per hour coaching sessions has shown us that performance is influenced by social advantage, or disadvantage, and is evidence of a system which is inherently fuelling inequality. The pressure on primary school teachers to teach -

Mr K Robinson:

Does the Member agree that there is not only social disadvantage in the ability of some parents to pay £15 per hour for tutoring but also an inherent danger that an independent sector may grow unless we get the balance of this new system absolutely correct?

Mr McElduff:

That is absolutely right. It is skewed in the manner outlined by Mr Robinson.

There is pressure on primary school teachers to teach a differentiated curriculum to two sets of pupils in the same class - those who are entering the exam and those who are opting out.

Rather predictably, the Irish language equips us with a philosophy for education. The word "oideachas" means education or foster parenting, "oide" being the foster parent or teacher, and the phrase "mol an óige agus tiocfaidh sí" means praise the young people and they will develop. This emphasis and philosophy takes us away from the pressure of academic success, which Ms Lewsley mentioned earlier when discussing recognising pupils' inclinations towards other areas such as sport and music. I would include woodwork as another example.

Regarding the format of the consultation exercise that lies ahead, there is a key distinction between the dissemination seminars being organised in-house by the education and library boards for school principals and key practitioners and those being organised for the public. These public meetings will be crucial, and I am concerned that the education and library board areas believe that two will be sufficient. The Western Education and Library Board area, for example, contains rather different entities - Fermanagh, Strabane, Omagh and Derry. There need to be at least five public meeting exercises held in that board area.

The Education Committee envisages a central role for the Assembly, and it is up to the Minister, and the review body, to help facilitate us in this exercise. It is up to us as a Committee to assert ourselves and to impose ourselves on the debate. Other models need to be examined closely, and Mr Wells made a very valuable contribution in outlining the Craigavon model. That should be looked at formally by the Education Committee.

The system of education in the Twenty-six Counties should be looked at. I was disappointed that the Gallagher Report did not point us in that direction for some lessons.

Some of Mr Sammy Wilson's criticisms appear to be motivated by his desire to be seen as a Rottweiler at the heels of the Minister at all stages, irrespective of merit.

Mr Ervine:

He is looking for a lamp-post.

Mr McElduff:

I will not comment on that. For the purposes of Hansard, let me point out that I was prompted by Mr Ervine.

Will the Minister reaffirm the commitment to actively relate to the Committee? I give the Minister credit - not just because he is a party Colleague - for grasping this nettle, and I look forward to our moving into the debate. It will be comprehensive and passionate. We must all focus on emerging with a system of education that cherishes all children equally.

Mar fhocal scoir. Is mithid dúinn uilig ár n-éirim agus ár gcruthaitheacht chomhchoitianta a úsáid le córas oideachais a dhearadh a rachas chun sochair dár gcuid páistí uilig agus a chuirfeas ár gcuid páistí uilig ar comhchéim.

Madam Deputy Speaker:

For those who could not get into the debate, I apologise for the shortage of time. I call the Minister of Education.

The Minister of Education (Mr M McGuinness):

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am grateful to Mr Gallagher for proposing the motion on this most important topic. I am also grateful for the contributions of other Members to the debate. It is true that the debate could have been better attended. Those Members who did attend have done themselves proud. Their contributions were very impressive. This was one of the finest, most positive and most constructive debates that there has been in this Assembly, and all parties, without exception, should take credit for that.

I would like to place on record my appreciation to Prof Tony Gallagher, Prof Alan Smith and the 18 or so members of their research team for their excellent and comprehensive report on the effects of the selective system of education. They have done us all a great public service.

Many findings in the report are familiar to us all, and that was evident from many of the contributions. Indeed, after 50 years of the current arrangements it would be surprising if they were not. However, the unique contribution made by the report lies in the firm and sound research base that it provides for considering the way forward.

We must focus on the future. The pace and extent of technological change and the rising expectations of our people demand that we do so. The time is right to consider whether our current education system helps all our children to fulfil their potential and equips them adequately for life in the twenty-first century.

I suggest that the evidence in this report shows that while some children do exceedingly well in the present system, many do not. There are four key findings in the report which support this view. First, there is the long tail of low achieving schools alongside the many high achieving ones. The research suggests that this polarity in achievement may be an inevitable consequence of the selective system.

Secondly, there is the significant boost to attainment resulting from attendance at a grammar school and the under-representation of children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds in those schools.

Thirdly, there is the detrimental impact which preparation for the transfer test has in primary schools. This is most evident in the narrowing of the Key Stage 2 curriculum.

Fourthly, a feature of the selective system - which is of great concern to me and to most parents - is the sense of failure and the huge blow to self-esteem felt by those who do not obtain a grammar school place. This group constitutes the majority of our children.

This report is a key document, and it has been widely circulated by my Department to all schools, colleges of further education, universities and other education interests.

Copies have been sent to representatives of industry and business, to community groups and to all Members of this House. It is available in public libraries and on the Department's web site, and the full text of the research briefing summarising the findings was carried in two daily newspapers.

The publication of the report has provoked extensive public, political and media interest and initiated a major public debate on selection and the structure of post-primary education. My strong sense of the public mood, which has been confirmed by the response to the publication of the research, is that there is widespread dissatisfaction in the community with aspects of our present education system, and there is an overwhelming desire for change.

There is less consensus or clarity, however, on what that change should entail. I am therefore very determined that there should be an open and informed public debate on the future shape of post-primary education. I am also determined that the debate should be structured in a way that enables views to be received, opinions and evidence to be presented and analysed, and proposals for change to be developed.

Public confidence in the objectivity and fairness of the review process is of paramount importance, and to promote this I have decided to establish an independent review body to examine the future arrangements for post-primary education. The review body will comprise up to nine members, and will be chaired by Mr Gerry Burns, the former ombudsman and previously chief executive of Fermanagh District Council. I am very pleased that he has agreed to take on this task, and I am confident that he will see it through to a successful conclusion. I have already consulted with my ministerial Colleagues and the Education Committee on the composition of the review body and will finalise the membership shortly. The review body will be supported by a panel of four education advisers. There will be one each from Scotland, England and the South, along with a local adviser, Prof Tony Gallagher, who led the selection research team. I have also agreed, on the back of discussions with the Education Committee, to consider whether a further local person can be added.

In addition, an education consultative forum will be established, comprising our principal education partners and representatives of a wide range of opinion on selection. The consultative forum is intended to provide information, ideas and advice to assist the review body in addressing the matters set out in its terms of reference, and in particular to advise on the practical implications of any proposed changes to post-primary education arrangements. I expect the review body and its supporting arrangements to be fully established by the end of this month.

The review body's terms of reference are very wide-ranging. The body will be mandated to consider research and other relevant information and to undertake widespread consultation in order to identify and consider key issues arising from the current selective system of post-primary education. It will assess the extent to which the current arrangements for post-primary education meet the needs and aspirations of children and their parents and the requirements of the economy and society. It will report to me its conclusions and recommendations on the future arrangements for post-primary education.

The review body will be specifically asked to address a range of important issues, such as the age or ages at which transfer should occur; the administrative arrangements for transfer; the implications for the curriculum, school structure, further education, higher education, training and the economy; and the costs, timing and phasing of any revised arrangements. I expect the review body to report by the end of May 2001. The report will be published. I will then consider the recommendations in the report in consultation with the Executive Committee, the Education Committee and this House before deciding on how best to take them forward.

Quite a number of issues were raised in the course of the debate, and -

Mr Byrne:

The current selection system in Northern Ireland is primarily what I call a supply-side-determined system. In other words, the numbers who are successful are determined by the total number of grammar school places in Northern Ireland. It is therefore not a fair and balanced system. Does the Minister accept that it is primarily the total number of grammar school places that drives the current system?

7.30 pm

Mr M McGuinness:

It is important that people recognise and understand that this is not just a review of the 11-plus. This is a review of post-primary education and how we can put in place the best possible education system for all our children. In the course of the review there will be a huge responsibility on everyone involved, including the review body, the consultative education forum and the advisers, to consider every aspect of education. We need to deal with the issues which Ms Lewsley and Ms McWilliams raised. Education is not just about preparing people for academia. Yes, it is important that we produce academics, but it is also important that we see education as preparing children for a future in a rapidly evolving world in technological terms.

Prof Gallagher raised the issue of the options. He outlined five that are around at this time. They are not exclusive. The review body has the right, under its terms of reference, to broaden the issues beyond the five options laid down in the report.

The Professor raised the issue of publicity points. It is important that the general population has access to information on how to make a submission to the review body. I have no doubt whatsoever that one of the most important debates on education is going to begin next month. It is vital that everyone understands how he or she can access the review body and make their contribution.

Mr Kennedy raised the range of the bodies and the relationships among them. The education advisers will be drawn from England, Scotland and the South and will include Prof Gallagher, who undertook the research. For Prof Gallagher to be there is a huge benefit because of the service that he has provided. Also, the participation of Prof John Coolahan from Maynooth University, who has agreed to serve on that body, will bring an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) perspective. He has undertaken a considerable amount of work for that organisation.

The remaining two places will be filled shortly, and the advisers will provide a source of education expertise and bring a breadth of vision and a range of different perspectives to bear on the deliberations of the body. However, it will be for the review body to decide how, and to what extent, it wishes to use the advisers.

The education consultative forum is intended to provide information, ideas and advice to assist the review body in addressing the matters set out in its terms of reference and, in particular, to advise on the practical implications of any proposed changes to post-primary education arrangements. The forum forms part of the support arrangements, and it is up to the review body to determine the precise role it wishes the forum to play.

Mr Kennedy raised the issue of timescales and seminars and whether there was some confusion. Two dissemination seminars have been organised in each board area to provide the opportunity for school principals and other education interests to listen to the findings and raise questions. I must stress that these are entirely separate from the public meetings which the review body is organising for November and December. There will be 17 or 18 public meetings across the North.

It is vitally important that the public understands that. Danny Kennedy referred to the prospect of there being a meeting shortly between Gerry Burns and the Education Committee, and I am hopeful that that will happen - possibly next Thursday. Education has a leading role to play, and I have made it clear, in the course of all my discussions and deliberations with the different educational interest groups, that I value a positive and constructive approach to this debate. This debate has been conducted in a positive and constructive manner. It sets a good example, and everybody in the public would do well to consider what has happened in the House tonight. People have approached this in a very sensible fashion and, as Minister of Education, I know that if we are to deal with this in a sensible fashion, then the best way is to achieve as much consensus as we possibly can. That is vitally important. I value the relationship with the Education Committee and with all of the educational interest groups which are going to embark on this very important debate.

Sammy Wilson raised the issue of the lack of involvement of the Assembly and the Education Committee -

Madam Deputy Speaker:

I ask the Minister to draw his remarks to a close.

Mr M McGuinness:

It is important to say that there is no predetermined or favoured outcome. The review body will consider all the options. The Education Committee and the Executive Committee have been consulted on the membership and terms of reference of the review body. I have met with the Committee, and Gerry Burns is going to meet with it. The Assembly, the Executive and the Education Committee will be consulted on the review body's proposals, and any legislation will, of course, be debated in the Assembly and the Education Committee.

There are other points that I wish to respond to, but we do not have the time. I will respond in writing to the other questions that have been raised.

The last thing I want to say is that I was to present prizes in a high school in County Derry at 7.30 tonight. Perhaps it is not important to a lot of people, but it is important to me. I am obviously not going to be there. It is incumbent upon everybody to consider - especially when one is asked to draw one's remarks to a close before having had the opportunity to respond to all of the issues - that there are many disappointed children out there who thought this morning that I was coming, and who are now wondering why I did not turn up. I hope that they will hear of this debate in the morning.

Mr Davis:

I endorse the Minister's remarks. Some Members have sat this evening and did not get the opportunity to speak in the debate because other Members spoke on and on, despite the ruling from the Chair. Members should bear that in mind. Members who are prepared to sit here in the evening for a debate should have an opportunity to contribute.

Mr M McGuinness:

I have almost finished, and I appreciate that there is pressure on people. However, I want to say that this is a vitally important issue. It is a hugely important educational and social issue. I was impressed with the eloquence of Members tonight, particularly those who spoke about the implications of this for society and for the community. Their concerns need to be taken on board very seriously.

This is one of the most important issues that I am going to deal with in the course of my stewardship of the Department of Education. If we continue in this very constructive vein, I have no doubt that this Assembly and my Department can make a huge contribution towards enhancing the education of all our children in the future.

Mr Wells:

Madam Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the remarks made by Mr Davis. I ask for an assurance from you that, should this issue come before the Assembly again, more than two hours will be allocated to it and that it will not be held well into the evening. I do not know who made this decision, but a decision to allocate two hours to perhaps one of the most important decisions we will ever make - on the future of our children's education - is totally inadequate.

There are many disappointed people here this evening who wished to speak and were not given an opportunity. This must not happen again.

Madam Deputy Speaker:

May I explain to Members who are not aware of the procedures that the time allocation for Assembly debates is set by the Business Committee and therefore by the party Whips. It would be better to give this advice to them so that they can recommend to the Business Committee accordingly.

I do declare a slight conflict of interest as my son is due to sit the 11-plus next year.

Mr Gallagher:

As others have said, this has been a very constructive debate so it is very easy for me to sum up, and I do not intend to take very long.

I too was impressed by the contributions. All Members have a genuine feel for education and a concern about what it should deliver to the most important group in society, our young people. While different views were expressed, I feel it was right to have the debate. We can see the different standpoints more clearly, and that is no bad thing.

We had a graphic account from Mr Billy Hutchinson on people's educational experiences in his area. He made a valid point about teacher exchanges. We have very little teacher mobility in Northern Ireland. Teachers tend to start work in a school and to stay there. Through this consultation we should look at how the system could benefit from movement of teachers - not long-term placements, but some experience in different localities and in different types of schools.

Mr Gibson:

I listened with some interest tonight, but school management was not mentioned. A successful school must have successful management. The current system is probably feudal and is a result of transfers from religious institutions that took place well before anyone here was born. School management is vital, and someone has to make a wise choice that does not depend on social needs, poverty, or any of those things. It does depend on the quality of teaching. Can we find someone with the ability to make a wise choice?

Mr Gallagher:

I agree that we should place great emphasis on the quality of management.

During the input from Mr Hutchinson the issue of parental apathy was raised. I am sure many of us have experienced that. This is something we should look at because if we can improve parental attitudes, the value the community places on education will increase.

At the end of the summary report the authors recommend that before we get too heavily into the types of structures we would like to see we should look at the objectives of education - the social, educational and economic objectives. Once we have looked at those objectives, we can move on and look at the structures.

I think that that is useful advice to keep in mind. We are better informed for having this debate. That will stand us in good stead because at the end of the day it is up to us to take decisions about the best way forward.

7.45 pm

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly notes the recent report 'The Effects of the Selective System of Secondary Education in Northern Ireland' and calls for wide-ranging consultations involving all of the education partners about the best way forward for post-primary education.

Adjourned at 7.46 pm.

<< Prev