It may be considered an advantage that I cannot be heard.

On behalf of my party, the Committee for Education, and the Assembly, I unreservedly condemn the outrageous attack in north Belfast last night, which resulted in injuries to two children in an explosion. I hope that the House will join with me in saying that attacks of this nature have no place in north Belfast or anywhere in Northern Ireland.

I am pleased and honoured to bring forward the report, which outlines the Committee for Education's views and findings on the review of post-primary education. I am grateful to the Committee members for their assistance, good humour and hard work on the report. I also want to place on record my appreciation and gratitude to the Committee Clerk, Committee staff, the specialist adviser, Prof John Gray and the Assembly researchers for their hard work.

It is regrettable that the Minister of Education is not here on this important occasion. Whilst he has more pressing matters to deal with, his absence from the Chamber is most unfortunate. However, he has written to the Committee and myself apologising for his absence.

On 28 September 2000 the Minister of Education published the results of the research carried by Prof Tony Gallagher and Prof Alan Smith into the effects of the selective system of secondary education in Northern Ireland. At the same time the Minister launched a public consultation on the arrangements for post-primary education in Northern Ireland and formed an independent review body to consider and make recommendations on the matter. These actions sparked one of the largest debates on education here in a very long time-[Interruption].

I note that senior Colleagues are now deserting me.

The Committee for Education believed that the issues under consideration were crucially important and that any decisions taken would affect generations to come. Whilst we did not want to replicate the review body's work we felt that we needed to give the matter due and timely consideration. The purpose of the Committee's report is to crystallise the views of the Committee and to enable us to carry out an informed assessment of the recommendations of the review body when they are published on 24 October.

The Committee also decided that any evidence it gathered, its findings, views, and conclusions reached should be published to further inform consideration of the issues and contribute to the public debate that will ensue. We felt that that was important, as there appeared to be a lack of information to enable people to reach informed opinions on the various alternative systems available.

The Committee agreed to consult with interested groups and organisations. Recognising that we could only hear evidence from a relatively small sample of the many groups, organisations, and individuals with an interest in the issue, we identified a number of key witnesses. We received written submissions and took evidence from, among others, the education and library boards; teacher and head teacher organisations; higher and further education organisations; employer organisations; and academics who have carried out relevant research. We also had access to the views and comments expressed to the review body through its web site.

To ensure that we received the views of parents, teachers and pupils, a number of focus groups were held on our behalf in Belfast, County Fermanagh and County Tyrone by the Assembly's library and research staff. The results proved extremely interesting, and various views were expressed, particularly by pupils. The Education Committee also considered research papers on various alternative post- primary education systems and undertook visits to Kiel and Munich in Germany, as well as to Edinburgh and Glasgow, to see at first hand how other education systems operate.

While the Committee recognised that it would be helpful to observe other systems, we acknowledged that a model could not simply be lifted from somewhere else and applied without account being taken of the unique circumstances and the historical context of Northern Ireland.

As I have illustrated, the Committee gathered a great deal of detailed information and a wide range of views. We are grateful to all those who showed such willingness to contribute. It was particularly important to establish a link with our counterparts in the Scottish Parliament. I hope that other Committees of the Assembly will pursue such links, where relevant to their responsibilities.

I will now outline the Committee's key findings and conclusions. I am sure that my Committee Colleagues will also highlight these areas in their contributions to the debate. The primary legislation shaping the current system of education in Northern Ireland dates back to the Education Acts of 1944 and 1947, which resulted in the bipartite system. It has, relatively speaking, remained unchanged since then, although the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 introduced greater parental choice, open enrolment and the introduction of a national curriculum.

Demands on the current system have changed dramatically. Whereas in times past, only a small minority of pupils was expected to achieve examination qualifications, a great majority now does so. Many would argue that the current system has served us well over the years. A number of the strengths of the current system were drawn to our attention. However, many others who gave evidence have suggested that, given changing expectations of education, substantial reforms are now required.

It is clear from the evidence received by the Committee that three key issues need to be addressed. The first is the nature of the school curriculum and the opportunities and experiences available for all pupils. The second is whether the current arrangements for organising schools are appropriate for future demands or whether structural changes are required. The third is whether changes to the procedures by which pupils are allocated to post-primary schools are required.

Taking account of increased educational participation rates and the potential spare capacity in the system, the Committee believes that, irrespective of the arguments about the strengths or weaknesses of the current system, reorganisation and change seem inevitable.

I come now to the 11-plus. It is clear that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the present transfer tests. I must stress that these are criticisms of the present tests, and it should not be assumed that the Committee is opposed to testing using alternative methods. Criticisms of the tests include the effect that they have of narrowing the primary curriculum, particularly in the final two years; the power of the tests to predict potential - many young people who are judged to have only modest potential often go on to perform well; and the extent to which stress and related factors affect the test performance and the longer-term consequences of pupils' self-esteem. Many witnesses also wished to see more effort being made to acknowledge parental preferences.

The Committee believes that the two one-hour tests are no longer appropriate and recommends that the current tests should cease to be administered from a feasible future date. It recognises that this cannot happen immediately and, therefore, recommends that as an interim measure the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) should be instructed to undertake such improvements as can be made within a limited timescale.

The Committee also recommends that a transfer profile seeking to combine the four elements - current pupil performance, other aspects of pupil development, parental wishes and teacher guidance - should be implemented as soon as possible in order to provide a fuller and broader picture of pupils' achievements during their primary years.

It is apparent that the post-primary curriculum needs to be changed and updated to meet future requirements. There is great concern regarding the status of vocational education and the need to improve this. The need to provide choice and flexibility was also highlighted. In particular, local business organisations drew attention to the shortage of employees with the necessary skills and qualities for today's workplace.

The Committee is of the view that changes to the current curriculum are necessary and should be implemented as an integral part of any changes to the post-primary system. Specifically, the Committee recommends that a core curriculum should be offered for all pupils to follow until around the age of 13 or 14, with flexibility to reflect the needs and circumstances of individual pupils. Choices available to pupils should include academic, vocational and technical subjects.

Schools should explore collaborative arrangements with other institutions to ensure a range of opportunities for all pupils. A broad skill-based curriculum should be implemented, along the lines already recommended by the CCEA. A formal mechanism in which business and industry can highlight changing skill requirements at a relatively early age should be established. Stronger links between schools and higher and further education providers should be explored in order to increase flexibility of provision.

To inform the education system of the future, the Committee reviewed the strengths and weaknesses of alternative structures, including the current bipartite system, all-ability comprehensive schools, delayed selection systems and consortia of schools. However, in considering the way forward, the Committee wished to focus on the required outcomes of the education system rather than on the structure by which they would be delivered.

Some Members will be greatly disappointed that the Committee has not made a recommendation in favour of one particular structure. We are all aware of the particular views of the political parties on this matter, and it was not the Committee's intention or wish either to pre-empt the report of the Burns review or to do its job. The Committee therefore has recommended a number of key principles that it believes should underpin any future developments - for example, the social, economic and educational objectives of any future system must be clearly identified and stated. The Committee has outlined its views on what these should be, and I will come back to that shortly.

Any reforms of the current system should be phased in over a period of time and should involve key groups throughout the change process.

That will be essential if change is to be managed. Any changes must recognise and build upon the current system's strengths. The Committee for Education was consistently advised to retain the best and improve the rest.

Choices on post-primary schooling should be offered to pupils and their parents. The high educational standards achieved in Northern Ireland over the years must be maintained. However, strong action must be taken to tackle the perceived tail of underachievement. Any changes that are introduced must recognise that the commitment and contribution of all teaching staff will be central to the implementation programme. Whatever the nature of educational provision at post-primary level, parity of esteem must be achieved.

The social, economic and education objectives of any future system must enable pupils to develop their potential; enable them to exercise ownership and choice; provide appropriate and varied opportunities to ensure the development of a well educated, skilled and employable workforce for the Northern Ireland economy; place greater emphasis on innovation, creativity and entrepreneurial skills; enable every individual to identify his or her aptitudes, interests and vocation in life; and improve the processes for identifying and addressing elements of deprivation that may impact on a pupil's performance. At present, we are not meeting those objectives well.

I have presented the report as Chairperson of the Committee for Education, and my party Colleagues will outline the Ulster Unionist Party's position on the matter. However, my view is that the system should open up opportunities for pupils rather than close down their choices. Any new system must be fair to all, and it must build on and encompass the best of the current system.

In considering the matter, the Committee was reminded on a few occasions of the opportunities and the responsibilities that it faces. For the system to change, it is essential that a high level of consensus be achieved. A consensus already exists in some areas, but in others it has yet to emerge. The report outlines the views of the Committee for Education, and it will enable the Committee to carry out an informed assessment of the Burns review body's recommendations when it publishes its report on Wednesday.

I took pleasure in presenting the report. The Committee spent a long time considering this important issue, and I trust that it will make a significant contribution to the future. The Committee for Education looks forward to playing a full part in that process with the shared objective of improving the quality of education for everyone in Northern Ireland. I urge Members to support the motion.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion as a member of the Committee for Education and as education spokesperson for the SDLP. The SDLP views the education system as the cornerstone of society. Education is a fundamental human right, as well as being a key driver of the economy and central to personal development. Genuine equality of opportunity cannot be created without first securing an effective and well- resourced education system that is open and inclusive, flexible enough to cater to all needs, and responsive to the society that it serves.

The selective education system has done untold damage to generations of children. It has inaccurately tested them, artificially segregated them and precipitately closed doors to future careers. However, the damage to fragile self-confidence is unforgivable.

Since its inception, the SDLP has called for a new all-ability system to offer inclusive education that guarantees equality of opportunity for all. We have maintained our opposition to selection on the grounds that the system is unfair, divisive, ineffective, and damaging to children and society. The arguments have been made time and time again, and I will not rehearse them here.

We have acknowledged the initial benefits brought about by the introduction of the 11-plus in a post-war society in which standard education finished at 14. It opened the door to second-level education for a generation of children. However, modern society requires all children to be educated well beyond the age of 14. The second-level system must move to meet the needs of the twenty-first century.

The SDLP acknowledges the concerns expressed that the significant achievements of the current system might be lost if selection were abandoned. The high academic results attained in grammar schools represent enormous dedication and skill on the part of staff and students. However, it does not detract from that to point out that selection brings children together from the most educationally advantaged backgrounds, socially and economically. The necessary corollary means that it comes as no surprise that schools face difficulties where the student body reflects disproportionately high levels of social and economic disadvantage. High numbers of young people leave school with few or no qualifications, and there are grounds to believe that the selective system has played a role in that.

The Gallagher report says that the differentiated pattern in Northern Ireland, with a consequent over-representation of low-achieving schools, may be the inevitable consequence of a selective system. There is a compelling case to be made for the fundamental reform of procedures for transfer from primary to post-primary schooling. That would entail fundamental reform to structures and curricula at post-primary level. It is vital that, in making the transition to a new system, the highest possible standards and quality of education are maintained and developed. In moving to implement such reform, the SDLP believes that, by teaching 11-to 18-year-olds together, the highest academic standards of the present can be maintained and offered to a greater number of children alongside improved vocational and social development.

The key principles that we wish to see maximised in the new system include: excellence in the standard of education available to all; equality of opportunity; parity of esteem for academic and vocational training; structures to encourage the development of all students' full potential; parental and student choice; and the involvement of individuals in decisions that will affect them. Students should not have their life choices restricted before it is necessary to do so. Therefore, flexibility is required to cater for different rates of development. We want to see social inclusion in the new system. Access to all levels of education should be open to everyone, irrespective of their social background. Equitable funding for all schools should take account of the imperative of targeting social need.

The review body's work must be seen in context, and the ongoing curriculum review has obvious significance. Recent years have seen the introduction of more vocational subjects in schools. It is hoped that an end to selection can contribute positively towards the creation of a more balanced primary curriculum, ending the unhealthy practice of "teaching to the test". It should make room for a more flexible system in which children might explore a range of interests, combining the so-called academic subjects with the vocational, leaving career options open for as long as possible and encouraging better motivation through wider choices.

Change must be managed effectively in order to minimise disruption to students during the process. Teachers should have maximum input and protection during such upheaval. The implementation of reform should be undertaken in a manageable fashion in consultation with the teaching profession, taking full account of the additional workload involved in implementing any new arrangements.

Any transition should be properly funded. It is vital that parents have an opportunity to discuss the impact of options for change and that they should be kept fully informed as reforms are implemented.

I add my thanks to all those involved in the production of the report, as the Chairperson of the Committee has already done.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I endorse and broadly welcome the extensive report. It should receive a wider audience and not only be read by the members of the Committee for Education. Although it precedes the findings of the Burns review, it will make a significant impact nonetheless. The Committee underwent many rigours to get the report to this point. I add my thanks to everyone involved in its delivery.

I support the Chairperson's comments about north Belfast and the protests outside the school. Those protests should not be going on and children should be allowed to attend their school. Children have a tremendous affinity with their school and their teachers.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is clear that we discussing post-primary education, not primary education. I ask you to make people stick to the subject.

Mr Hutchinson, you are correct. However, as Mr Kennedy referred to the matter, I thought it improper to interfere.

A LeasCheann Comhairle, post-primary and primary education cannot be separated nor dispensed with. The subject must be discussed in the round. The Chairperson referred to those issues, and it is right and proper that I also refer to them.

The Committee's report contains much detail. The current selection system has been in place since the 1940s. It catered for the situation pertaining at the time but which has now become outdated. The selection system was meant to separate people for leadership roles or professions; the rest would be employed in manual work. We have moved on since then, and the selection process is now seen as divisive. People are being typecast, and there is a stigma and an exclusive nature attached to the selection procedure and the schools involved. The percentage of children who are deemed to be failures at age 11 is something that few people now support. Much of the evidence that we heard points to widespread dissatisfaction among parents, teachers and the public with the present system. Changes are needed. Much of the Committee's response agrees with that.

Various attitudes for and against vocational and academic pathways were expressed. We have three options: we can reform, or tinker, with the present selection system; we can abolish it; or we can retain the status quo. However, the final one is not really an option.

The Burns review, the review of the curriculum and the local management of schools (LMS) review will be parts of an essential process. Many people would say that the past was well served by the selection procedure. I disagree, as would many others. The expectation then was that pupils would leave school at 16 and gain employment in agriculture, textiles or other industries.

The percentage of people that the system was meant to cater for has changed since its inception, and that must be taken into account.

We have a high-tech, global economy, and more opportunities exist in the changing world of business. Jobs are higher paid, especially vocational ones, and pay is closely connected with knowledge. Education continues through lifelong learning of skills. People no longer leave school and stop learning.

The Committee's approach to the evidence and the inquiry was one of consultation. All those who were involved - teachers, employers' organisations, academics and schools - have already been mentioned. The Committee carried out some benchmarking by travelling to Scotland and to Hamburg and Munich in Germany. The Scottish system seems to be closer to what we need than the systems that exist in England and Wales.

The strengths of the inquiry have been mentioned, but one of its failings is that it did not extend its benchmarking process by examining the system in the Twenty-Six Counties. We require a vocational education system that is close to its system, and it could have provided a more valuable knowledge base than the systems in Scotland and Germany. The Committee failed to look at that system this time, but there is no reason for not doing so in future.

The report mentions the strengths of the current system - the number of pupils who attain five GCSEs at grades A to C and the standard of excellence achieved by grammar schools. However, those are achieved at great cost and at the expense of secondary schools.

Supporters of the current system often point to the academic results that are achieved by grammar schools. School performance data, which are gathered by the Department each year, provide comfort for those who wish to retain the current system. Almost 95% of year 12 grammar school students achieve five or more GCSE passes at grades at A to C, which is the standard performance indicator. During the academic year 1997-98, those commendable results were achieved at a cost. The downside of the two-track educational system is illustrated when one compares grammar schools' achievements with those of secondary schools in which only around 31% of year 12 students achieve five or more GCSE passes at grades A to C.

Another problem, which illustrates the negative effects of selection on those who are deemed failures at the age of 11 is the relatively high proportion of pupils who leave school with no GCSE passes or equivalent qualifications. The Gallagher report pointed out that almost 22% of the North's school leavers in 1986-87 had no qualifications compared with 9·6% in England and 16% in Wales. The Northern Ireland Economic Council states that selection can be criticised for

Recent research on the North's education system raises doubts about whether it is possible to substantially raise the standards of secondary school students under the present system.

Grammar schools have many powerful supporters who are often products of a grammar school education. A high proportion of parents opt for their children to undergo the selection process. It could be argued that the overwhelming majority of parents recognise, at least in academic terms, the benefits of grammar school education. However, the selection test is, in fact, a deselection test, as 60% of children fail to obtain grammar school places. A parental decision to put a child through the transfer test may be as much a choice for the grammar schools as a choice against the perceived shortcomings of secondary schools. Selection by socio-economic background, often referred to as selection by mortgage, is as bad as selection by tests at 11 years old.

The current selection system was built on several assumptions that no longer apply. The labour market needs a highly differentiated workforce. At present, most manual labour is performed by machines, which people must learn to monitor and programme. Today's workforce needs a better overall education, and it must learn to adapt, understand and effect change by social and technological means.

Society can only afford to pay the high educational costs of an elite group. That should be intolerable in a democracy. It is possible to identify, accurately and early, those with superior intellectual skills. The old 11-plus test was based on a measure of IQ, which itself was supported by flawed research. Prof John Gardiner of Queen's University showed how inaccurate the 11-plus test is, with as little as 18 marks out of a possible 150 separating grades A to D. New theories of intelligence ascribe many different components to intelligence - not only the ability to perform well in a written exam. It is now accepted that children develop in spurts and not in a linear or even fashion, and that development is subject to influence.

It was difficult to ascertain which Committee members were in favour of keeping selection and those who wished to move away from it. I am glad that the SDLP is in favour of 11-to- 18, all-ability education, which my party supports. That is the way forward, with pupils from all levels supporting and helping each other to gain an overall higher level of achievement for the school. That would make more of a difference than to take away the cream of some schools and leave those less able or less well off together in a particular school. That lowers the levels of achievement and makes it more difficult for those schools to aspire to high levels of achievement.

I am happy that the report's recommendations are fairly even-handed, although I cannot agree with some of them. The Committee Chairperson said that changes should be phased in. Changes could be phased in over 10 years, depending on the approach. We do not want to do that. The essential change should be introduced immediately. Industry and others must have something of which they are sure. Schools and pupils must know what will be in place in three to five years' time. Pupils, teachers and parents want it sorted out in two to four years, rather let it drag on indefinitely with different levels of support.

I agree with other recommendations. There is no problem with parity of esteem. There is said to be perceived underachievement, but there is underachievement - it is not perceived - in some schools. Many pupils leave school without achieving anything, which leads to tremendous problems in later life. I recommend Members to read the five volumes attached to the report. What the Committee is trying to do is commendable, and I hope that one day there will be 11-to-18, all- ability schools. Vocational education has not had the recognition that it deserves. Society must deal with that.

The main purpose of the review is to maximise potential in education for everyone.

I add my thanks in acknowledging the work of my Committee colleagues, the Chairperson, the Clerk, the assistants, the Assembly researchers and the specialist adviser.

The considerable volume of oral evidence and written submissions in the Committee's work on the report clearly demonstrates the interest and concern of all in education. Our general conclusion was that it is essential that future structures be efficient and effective.

The Committee visited Scotland and Germany, and the overall message from all our considerations was that any future system of post-primary education must be flexible and cater as far as possible for the needs of every child. The age range must be less restrictive yet challenging. I hope that the outline of key components and the key values of equality, inclusivity and flexibility proposed in the report will be seriously considered in the Burns report.

We wish parents to have a better and more informed input in their children's choices. Teachers must also be involved, so that a realistic curriculum and choice of subjects will be offered to pupils at this important time.

The report states that

We should not throw the baby out with the bath water. The Committee did look into that issue.

Such a system would negate the stress and tension felt by all in the present system who must make a choice at 11-plus age. I will not go into that system's disadvantages. We need to be constructive and progressive.

The bottom line was to ensure that children had the opportunity to develop their potential to the full - intellectually, physically, spiritually, socially and creatively. The Alliance Party would certainly concur. We do not, as people may say, advocate the complete abolition of grammar schools. However, there should be viable alternatives, so that all children with differing abilities can enter a secure and confident future.

From personal and party experience, and from our Committee work on the report, I know that the present system does not work. Rather, it disadvantages the majority of our young people. As a direct result, many have faced adulthood with little or no incentive or ambition. We hope that the report's recommendations go some way to improving that situation. A good working relationship between schools, higher education institutes, industry and commerce will provide ample opportunity for each pupil to fulfil his or her own ideas of development.

The Alliance Party promotes the point that the review body will look at the lessons learnt in the all-ability integrated education sector. The positive elements of the current system have been coupled with a realistic structure that will serve all our people well. In doing so, the system will not only benefit pupils, but the whole of Northern Ireland in the long run.

I hope that the Assembly accepts this cross-party, consensual report, and that the Burns review body will adopt it as an integral part of its own report.

I am the first person to speak who is not a member of the Committee for Education.

Debates are becoming reruns of Committee meetings. That is dangerous. We should hear from other people who have views on education, not just from Committee members.

I could do what Sinn Féin has just done and score a few political points. Sinn Féin has answered at least one serious question this morning. The Ulster Unionists understood Sinn Féin to say that decommissioning would be immediate, but we have found out that that means between two and four years - in education terms.

My party does not support the concept of grammar schools. It believes that they are an elitist form of education. Every child should have the same right to education, irrespective of his or her class or economic status. We must get that right. We will not get it right by saying that some people are an elite and that therefore they should be allowed to do certain things because that might be to the benefit of Northern Ireland. Every child should have the same opportunity.

When I said that my party did not support the complete abolition of grammar schools, I was saying that there must be choice.

I was not referring to a particular party; I was referring to my party's position.

I welcome the report, but some of its recommendations must be examined. The report is vague; it is a non- prescriptive picture of an ideal education system. We need more than that. There was no recognition of the value of the Youth Service, and there was no suggestion that the Youth Service and the formal education system could be linked. We talk continually about the problem of low achievement, but we will not recognise that the Youth Service can do something about it. There is a need to harmonise the Youth Service with the formal education sector.

Everyone knows that "choice" is a weasel word. Nobody really has choice in the education system. Our key objective must be to consider how we can provide it. I am concerned at the idea that guidance by teachers will enhance pupils' choices. There are several things wrong with that. First, teachers may not want to move into that field. Secondly, trade unions would be concerned about it. Thirdly, what do we do if a teacher makes the wrong choice or gives the wrong information?

Underachievement begins at pre-school age. We talk continually about the problems in post-primary education, but they exist because nothing is done earlier. There are examples of how schools have tried to alleviate those problems. Several schools in the Greater Shankill area decided to do away with the curriculum for primary 1 and use the Scandinavian model. However, it will take a while for the results of that to be seen. We cannot tackle underachievement only in so-called sink schools. We must tackle the problem before children go to primary school.

It is too late to tackle underachievement at the post-primary stage. It must be done earlier. Secondary school teachers believe that they do not get the finished product. They get a child who, at the age of 11, has the reading ability of a nine-year-old. Primary school principals tell us that children from nursery school are not ready to go to school and are not ready to learn. Unless we listen to those views and develop a system that will get children ready for school, we will not get to the nub of the problem.

With regard to teaching staff, the report states that the value of teachers should be recognised. We should, however, also recognise the failures of teachers. We should look at how we can develop a fast track to get failing teachers out of the system. That will cost money, but it must be done. Most MLAs, and anyone who has ever been on a board of governors, will recognise that there are failing teachers and that something must be done about that. Is the money there to do that?

I decided not to move my recent motion on the threshold assessment because the Minister was not available. That was unfortunate, but I recognised the reasons why he was not here. The threshold assessment in Northern Ireland does not set a positive tone. It discriminates against young teachers, as well as against principals. We must correct that situation.

Recommendation 6.2.3 implies that a transfer profile will measure only what the child can do. If that is the case, how will we measure, for example, a child with a swimming commendation against a child who is an Irish dancing champion? How can we ensure equality? We cannot say that one is less valuable than the other. Who will decide which is most valuable? We must address such issues.

I agree that the vocational curriculum should be regarded as having the same worth as the academic curriculum. However, it is difficult to convince parents of that. How do we persuade parents of the value of a vocational course for their child? People have suggested the establishment of centres of excellence. That is probably the way in which we will go forward. Students will move around a campus. They will go to it because it is good for sport or information technology, for example.

There is a lovely word in all of this - "creativity". It is lovely no matter what it is applied to. It can be applied to anything - even to sport, whether football or any other sport. However, I have always found the word hard to define. I would like the Education Committee to define that word. Perhaps the Committee will be able to do that as matters unfold.

We await the outcome of the Burns review body on Wednesday, and that needs to be borne in mind during today's debate. It might have been better to discuss both reports together. Nonetheless, it is good to see the cross-community work of the Committee. I am not a member of the Education Committee, but I realise that it must have taken a lot of work to reach agreement on some of the recommendations. However, having gone through the review process, it would have been surprising if we had not heard some of the recommendations that have come forward, such as the abolition of the transfer test.

It is good to see recommendation 6.1.9, which emphasises that any changes should not encourage the development of a sizeable independent sector. That was a major concern during the discussions about the review. We must be careful that the conclusions in the Burns review body report do not lead to an increase in the independent sector, with people opting out.

For the first time, Northern Ireland has an opportunity to tackle the education system, particularly as we now know what is needed with regard to the curriculum. We are talking about devising a system that is moving towards the year 2020. An overhaul of the education system is needed - we are not tinkering with the margins any more. Prof Gallagher, in his report, referred constantly to the long tail of underachievement. The only way to tackle that is to overhaul the system. It is good that we now have the opportunity to do that. Unless we examine the structure of the current system and attempt to make some major structural changes, we will miss this opportunity.

The huge need for an inclusive, comprehensive and integrated system was put on the record in an earlier debate in the Chamber. I am delighted by the Northern Eastern Education and Library Board's thoughtful submission to the Committee, detailed in volume 3 of the report. The board wanted matters put on record, and today is a good opportunity to do so. Paragraph 7.7 on page 102 states

The report goes on:

The board then makes a very interesting point:

Clearly that type of system exists at age 18. Students progress to a fully integrated, non-segregated system of further and higher education. The board sees such a system as a starting point.

I take the point that there are different interpretations of the timescale of phases. However, it seems realistic to suggest that changes should be implemented within two or three years of the Burns review body's report being published. If changes are made, we must have a huge campaign of education and raising awareness among parents about what those changes will entail. Scotland made changes and did not look back. I understand that more Scottish children, right across society, are going to universities as a consequence of the creation of a pluralist and comprehensive system of education.

The system here is not working at the moment. As was stated by Prof Gallagher and others the assessment tail is wagging the curriculum dog. It should not be that way.

Mr McHugh mentioned John Gardiner's research into multiple intelligences, which are not taken account of in the transfer test. It will be interesting to see what replaces the transfer test. I was a teacher for many years. Higher education moved away from tests at the end of final year towards a system of accreditation over three years. The system of course assessments and inbuilt work with the students to improve their performance was a system that the students much preferred, rather than a test at a particular time that was based more on memory than on knowledge. That is the test that will be set now as we move forward.

I was concerned about the recommendations on the curriculum in the report. The Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment is undertaking a curriculum review, and it will be interesting to see the outcome of that. Recommendation 6.3.2 mentions the type of curriculum that could be followed up to the age of 13 or 14. It specifies that it would probably include, but not be confined to,

One of the criticisms that came from schools, and from many principals, was that education should be an enjoyable experience. I have children myself, and I know that one of the subjects that they most enjoy is drama. It is sad to see that it is not highlighted. Billy Hutchinson referred to creativity. Children often find themselves confined in classrooms at a very early age, particularly in this country where, at the age of four, they start in huge classes of 30 pupils. They rarely have the opportunity to be creative themselves. Since most of the post-primary principals pointed out that learning should be enjoyable, it seems rather disappointing that we have not included subjects such as music and drama - indeed, the arts as we know it. Over and over again the criticism is made that these are the first subjects to be cut when we curtail the curriculum. I am a little concerned that they have been narrowed - indeed, those subjects seem to have disappeared from the recommendations.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>