When the Member talks about integrated education, does she mean the bringing together of all children from all communities in one school system, or is she talking about a specific, contrived system that sets itself apart from existing systems and further dilutes the opportunity to bring all children together? Earlier I spoke about bringing post-16 children together. There are opportunities to do that, but I did not mean in a separate system; I meant within the existing framework.

There seems to be an implied criticism of the integrated education sector there. I hope not. [Interruption] I hear the Member saying "No."

I am promoting the integrated education system that now educates 6% of children in Northern Ireland. It is a pure integrated education system that brings Catholics, Protestants and others together in integrated schools that Members know well - Lagan College, Hazelwood College, Strangford College. Those schools provide a model that is important in Northern Ireland. We do not need to build schools on greenfield sites; existing schools can transform themselves to gain integrated status. Integration is about respecting each other and learning about each other's communities, religions and cultures. It is about teachers and boards of governors being integrated.

If resources were spent wisely, they would create further community cohesion, rather than pandering to the self-interest of any particular sector. While the Women's Coalition respects and accepts the rights of parents and children to choose, it believes that there is enough evidence to show that many people in Northern Ireland, if they had real choices, would choose integrated education - that is vital.

The Women's Coalition thinks - and the Education Committee's report endorses this - that the creation of a unified, cohesive model is entirely feasible and that there is enough expertise and creative thinking in educational circles to do it.

That model will not only embrace the principles endorsed by the Committee and contained in many of the submissions, including our own, to this report and the Burns review, but - given the declining number of children in Northern Ireland - will also create a system that will begin to unify and heal and allow all children to fulfil their potential. Our argument does not compromise the standards of excellence on which we all agree. Our model - an integrated, comprehensive school system - recognises cultural diversity and religious or philosophical value systems; allows for the nurturing of those things without detriment to other priorities; encourages inclusion and parity of esteem for different cultures and languages; and widens opportunity for all, regardless of background.

I applaud the Committee for the report and for the hard work that was put into it. It was an excellent exercise, which has opened up a series of important educational issues and amassed an impressive body of opinion. When I think about education, I return to my student days and the concept of equality of opportunity. That is still a pertinent concept; the important thing is not only equality of access, but equality of opportunity. The system must ensure that all children have the same opportunities.

The report, rightly, refers to underachievement and the consequent skills shortage. In the minutes of evidence there is reference to the growth in grammar school numbers from 27% to 35% of the pupil cohort. The report suggests that there are literacy and numeracy problems in that sector for the first time.

Open enrolment had a major impact on the post- primary sector. Members will recall that the former chief inspector of schools, Mr Ivan Wallace, described it as a process of bringing market forces into education. Children and parents were to be treated as customers, and the concept of service was lost. Such a policy is inappropriate in education. Many Members will also have experience of market forces through their membership of local councils. Recently an academic asked whether the same concept would be applied to the police. I could imagine Chris Patten trying to do that. Should we call the boys that the police arrest "customers"? Should the police say "I hope that you have a nice stay in your three-star cell tonight, sir"? There is a limit to how far business notions can be applied to certain areas, particularly public services. The Committee must ensure that that is better balanced with the other work that is being done, such as the report from the Burns review body, in order to take the pressure off schools.

The most valuable recommendation is the abolition of the 11-plus examination. The SDLP has been calling for that since its inception in 1969 - the issue was raised at the first conference. The report recommends that the 11-plus be replaced by a transfer profile. The Committee says that more work must be done on that, and it is important for us to figure out how that system will work.

It is also important to have a complete view of a pupil's ability and performance. However, the transfer test should not be substituted. A non-selective system should be just that, but by replacing the 11-plus would we not be replicating the initial problem? In that respect I am a little critical of the report's position. The Committee's idea could be open to abuse, and it needs to be monitored carefully.

Primary school principals used to have a slight degree of latitude in grading pupils. I heard many stories of headmasters returning home to find televisions and other nice presents, which had been left by expectant parents. Can you imagine the parental pressure on the principal and the staff during the preparation of the profile? I strongly argue that while the idea has perhaps not yet been fully thought out, it needs to be monitored carefully by the Committee.

In addition, will the transfer profile help to eradicate the distortion of the primary 6 and primary 7 curriculum? Is there not a danger that that will become profile time, rather than curriculum time? That is a second reason to be careful.

The concept of the "neighbourhood school" did not receive the justice that the Committee might have given it. We do much damage to the local community by taking many of the best 11-year-old youngsters 20 or 30 miles away from their community to educate them with children who have travelled similar distances. Thus they begin the early process of emigration from their local town or area. That process continues when they go on to higher education.

We must not lose sight of the strong argument for having a school at the heart of a community. I hope that we can return to those values, if not for any other reason than an economic one - although there are many social and community reasons. A school in the heart of the community would help to keep those with leadership potential in the community in which they were born and reared, and to which they could continue to contribute.

I am a long-time supporter of vocational education, and I remember the days when one felt like a missionary when trying to encourage people to look at that form of education. I strongly welcome the recognition that it is given and the fact that it is no longer marginalised. Even so, it would have been nice if vocational education had been clearly referred to in the recommendations. However, I have enough conviction in the bulk of the report to believe that that key component will not be missed.

Point 6.1.8 has already been referred to my Colleagues on both sides. It states that

That is a real truism. In the last 15 to 20 years no other profession has had to undergo and suffer as many changes to its professional work as much as teachers have done.

It really is remarkable how so many people have endured and emerged still sane.

I hope that when these worthwhile recommendations begin to be implemented, teachers will be given time for training and time to absorb them at a pace that does not affect the welfare of the children and the health of the teaching profession. It is no secret. The teaching profession's early retirement rate over the last number of years and the waiting lists for replacements show that it is difficult. People are not taking teaching on as enthusiastically as before, and there is a serious problem. We need to be careful how we go about implementing these recommendations. That is a concern I have, and I hope the Committee will take it on board.

I will start by speaking as Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning. That Committee will welcome this report, and I congratulate all involved in its production. Obviously, it will have to be considered alongside the Burns inquiry report that will come out later this week, but the significant thing is that it emerges from a process that is democratically accountable.

From the perspective of the Committee for Employment and Learning, there is one significant aspect. Once the 11-to-16-year-old age group is better dealt with, it will be possible to make certain changes that are necessary for education in the older 16 to 19 age group. There will be implications for the future of further education colleges, and, indeed, curriculum reform was referred to in the report from my Committee published a week ago. With certain subjects at A level, notably mathematics, physics and chemistry, there has been a relative decline - in some cases an absolute decline - in the numbers of young people taking those subjects. I am pleased to see that some of the recommendations here hint at approaches to dealing with this.

The report seems to be recommending the retention of what is good while raising standards in what statisticians call "the long tail of lower performance". Undoubtedly that is quite sound, and there is resonance with some issues that have emerged in the Department for Employment and Learning - for example, about 25% of adults here have the lowest measured level of literacy and numeracy. We note that compared to the German and other continental European economies there is a shortfall in the level of qualification of our workforce. Significantly, that does not occur so much at degree level as at apprenticeship, sub-degree, diploma and HND and HNC level, which hints at what may be happening in secondary schools relative to grammar schools.

I will now speak briefly as an MLA. As the report suggests, it is probably right that the current transfer procedure is not sustainable. It is pleasing that the Committee has proposed both short-term and longer-term reform of it. The report is valuable in helping us to think about selection and selectivity. Perhaps the problem is not so much selectivity per se, but the grounds on which selection is made. The Committee rightly looked at practice in Great Britain and other parts of western Europe. However, if time and resources had allowed, it should have considered some of the interesting developments in American schools over the last decade or so.

It is possible to talk about an Anglo-American approach, as exemplified by the city technology colleges in English inner cities and by the so-called charter schools and magnet schools in American inner cities. These have introduced school reform amid massive social problems and massive social division, so they are not dissimilar to some schools in Belfast.

The Anglo-American approach allows schools to specialise, and diversity is encouraged rather than curbed. Such schools select their pupils on a range of criteria, not just on academic ability and aptitude.

Mr Billy Hutchinson spoke of schools that specialise in sport, IT, music and other subjects. Northern Ireland can learn from the experiences of English and American cities. As Prime Minister Tony Blair said on 8 September 2000,

I am pleased that the Committee has looked at the German example, because the former West Germany in particular is an interesting social laboratory in that respect. Some German Länder have comprehensives, some have selectivity based on parental choice and some have selectivity based on examinations.

Many parts of Germany seem to have succeeded in maintaining a diversity of school types after the age of 11 by keeping a model that approaches parity of esteem: they have the academic Gymnasien and the vocational Realschulen.

It is a very instructive example for Northern Ireland, and one that my own party noted in its policy position, which we offered to the Burns review. As policies develop, we must avoid a "Rip van Winkle" approach; we must not pretend that we fell asleep in 1969 or 1972 and that we can simply apply the policies of that time and forget that the world has moved on.

There was an unholy alliance in the late 1960s and early 1970s between the Labour Education Secretary, Tony Crosland, who went to a public school, and, later, the Conservative Education Secretary, Margaret Thatcher, who attended Grantham Grammar School, I believe. Together they closed down most of England's grammar schools.

Significantly, Northern Ireland's examination results have improved relative to England's since 1971, and the gap is widening. That is no accident; it corresponds to the introduction of that great, or perhaps infamous, experiment of comprehensive education in England. It is an experiment, the Prime Minister has hinted, that is over and that has failed.

The teaching integrated mathematics and science (TIMS) studies show that the teaching of these subjects has deteriorated in Scottish comprehensives. On the whole, I warmly welcome the report. It dovetails with the report by the Department for Employment and Learning. I urge the House to support the motion.

I support the motion. Many Members have spoken about the importance of the debate. However, it is disappointing to see that many parties have absented themselves. We can see the importance that they put on the debate.

I compliment the Chairperson and members of the Committee for Education on their stamina in collecting such a volume of information and views on post-primary education. One Committee member rightly said that you would almost need an education to follow the report. It was an impressive undertaking. Committee members come from different school backgrounds and allegiances, and it is to their credit that they got the report together. I commend them for that. I also compliment the Committee Chairperson's initiative on having the Stationery Office capture almost 600 pages of minutes and papers on a CD- ROM. How does one take in such a volume of information?

Do your homework.

In two days?

Reference to the contributions that would be necessary from teachers has not been given the priority that I think essential. Any major changes in the curriculum involving mixed-ability classes will impose demands on teachers, who will be required to cover a broad range of abilities. That is a tremendous demand on the teaching profession.

The report is wide ranging, but there appear to be several contradictions. For example, paragraph 4.4.3 states

while paragraph 4.5.3 states

It is a small point.

Furthermore, paragraph 6.3.2 states:

and a list of subject areas is given. However, paragraph 6.3.6 states:

Perhaps there is no contradiction, but it is a bit confusing.

Paragraph 6.3.2 states that the core curriculum should include

Perhaps we could take on board the Scottish secondary school curriculum and stipulate that one modern European language be included.

The term "parity of esteem" figures prominently in the report. The expression is meaningless unless it clearly indicates the area being referred to. Is it parity of esteem between schools, pupils, subjects or awards?

Yesterday and last week I noted the excellent results recorded in a report in the 'The Sunday Times' on the top 25 voluntary, grammar, and independent schools in Northern Ireland. All of the schools must be congratulated. In my constituency, Enniskillen Collegiate Grammar School obtained equal fourth rank in the whole of the UK. That is my old school.

It has obviously improved.

It is well improved.

They have done well.

It may not be possible to draw exact parallels with the results in GB, but the GCSE figures in Northern Ireland are only bettered by six GB schools. The top 13 independent schools in Northern Ireland - with over 60% success rate in A levels - compare favourably with the upper 200 schools in GB.

Recommendation 6.1.9 states:

In the light of the superb results that I have just mentioned, the independent sector will flourish if parents are dissatisfied with the proposed new system. That is their prerogative in this age of parental choice.

We have much to be proud of in our present system in Northern Ireland. The Ulster Unionist Party's response to the review states clearly that a diversified post-primary school system is the right way to meet the varied needs of our children, and that the existence of a differentiated system has proved its value in producing good academic results.

In the words of the old cliché, we must ensure that in looking for change we do not throw the baby out with the bath water. I support the motion.

At 3.30 pm we will break for Question Time.

I declare an interest in this debate as a parent governor of a primary school and as a parent of three young children who will leave primary school in the next five years.

This debate is important to myself, my constituents, and everyone in Northern Ireland. Obviously I want the best for my children and for all the children in Northern Ireland, irrespective of their particular ability. The transition between schools should be as smooth as possible.

I welcome the recommendation that the current selection procedure should be ended as soon as possible. I am aware of the variation in the degree of coaching that can occur between schools and out of schools, through tutors, et cetera. I do not want the education of my children to be unduly affected by the time taken up by artificial test papers. I want them to be educated for life, not for a transition exam.

As an engineer, I was always taught to examine the evidence and ensure that when I tackled a problem, I tackled the root cause. Some Members have been advocating a new comprehensive system for Northern Ireland, but I have not heard evidence that our current education structure is the root cause. We have high education standards in Northern Ireland, and those high standards must be maintained. However, we all must accept that there is a tail of underachievement, and that is where the focus of change must be. We must ensure that the young people who are being failed by our current system are given an opportunity and that they are switched on to education, not only in school, but also for life.

Those who have advocated change have not addressed the core problem of underachievement. They are advocating change, but there is no guarantee that their particular change will improve the current situation of underachievement. It could result in the high standards that have been achieved being lowered.

Twenty-four percent of adults - who have been through the education system - are failing to meet basic international standards on numeracy and literacy. That is a big problem. Forty-four percent of those currently unemployed have no formal education, and we must tackle that. Those who urge an all-in-one system have still to advise how that system will best suit our young people. There has been a lack of clarity in what has been advocated.

As a member of the Education and Learning Committee I welcome recommendation 6.3.4, which would widen subject choice beyond the academic to include vocational and technical subjects. I am pleased that the Committee has made that recommendation. It was contained in the Ulster Unionist document, 'Excellence, Diversity and Choice'.

I also welcome recommendation 6.3.10, on improving linkages between schools and further education colleagues. During our recent inquiry, the Education and Learning Committee learnt that if we can make education more relevant to our young people, and particularly to those who are underachieving, they can become switched on to education and fully engaged in the learning process. In consultation with the Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education and Bombardier Shorts, we learnt that by altering coursework to make it more interesting and appropriate, 100% success rates could be achieved in some engineering courses.

Secondly, pilot schemes in the north-west were, encouragingly, improved by the increased use of a vocational model in the final year for students whose attendance had been unacceptably poor. If underachievers attend school for only 75% of the time, they will not succeed, no matter what type of education they receive. The pilots showed that work experience, and a greater involvement with further education colleges, could assist in reducing absentee levels by showing the students the relevance of what they were doing and could help them to go further.

Ms Lewsley spoke of the divisiveness of the present system and wished that all children be educated together. Had she nothing to say about the maintained education sector? Her comments could be applied equally to both systems in Northern Ireland. Why can our children not attend our state schools together for the benefit of all? That would allow us to offer greater diversity to our children in rural towns or in the middle of Belfast; it would also reduce the busing budget. Children would be integrated, but not in a selective manner; and more parents would send their children to such schools than send them to the present integrated sector. All children, not just those of the middle classes, would have an integrated education, and that would improve our society.

I welcome the report's emphasis on local solutions, because we do not have a clean canvas. There has been major investment in our school structures. Admittedly, many of them are in a poor state, but the cost of rebuilding and moving our children into a communal comprehensive system would be prohibitive. That system, as advocated in England and in Scotland, has created problems of social engineering through selection by proximity to schools. House prices, housing location and wages begin to determine the schools for which children will be selected.

Our vision for Northern Ireland should be an all- encompassing one. We do not want that sort of selectivity; we want to ensure that there is a mixed community in all our schools. We also want to ensure that we provide the highest possible standards.

There are problems that have not been addressed by those advocating a particular model. It is important to move forward cautiously and to take some of the other recommendations of this report on local solutions into consideration. It is also important to consult widely locally as well as through the educational structures.

It is easy to say that one will improve matters; it is much more difficult to ensure that one does not destroy the good in the existing system. I urge cautious movement forward, but I support the motion and look forward to its implementation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Agriculture and Rural Development

Question 1 is in the name of Mr Barry McElduff, but he is not in his place.

2.

asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what steps are being taken to address the recent criticisms of her Department by the Public Accounts Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General.

(AQO 312/01)

I take all reports by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) seriously, and I have set in train action relating to such earlier reports. Following publication of each PAC report, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development addresses the issues contained in the recommendations and conclusions by way of the Department of Finance and Personnel memorandum of reply. These memoranda have been produced, laid before the Assembly and published. The Member may wish to look at the memoranda which are available in the Assembly Library.

Following a recent hearing, I am awaiting the publication of a PAC report on the outbreak of brucellosis at the Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland. When that report is published, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development will prepare a response to the recommendations and conclusions by way of a Department of Finance and Personnel memorandum of reply. The memorandum will be laid before the Assembly and published.

Has the next phase of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's rural development programme taken into account the criticism of the Department's previous programme - particularly with regard to the unfinished Seeconnell equestrian centre project?

As the Permanent Secretary said when he was before the PAC, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has learnt lessons from the previous PAC report and will take every possible step to ensure that those are borne in mind with regard to all areas that attracted criticism - including the Seeconnell equestrian centre.

3.

asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what progress has been made on the establishment of an all-Ireland scrapie eradication programme; and to make a statement.

(AQO 321/01)

Under the auspices of the North/South Ministerial Council, I have agreed with Joe Walsh that scrapie eradication must be tackled through an all-island approach. The nature of the disease and of the sheep population in Ireland means that it makes sense to adopt a unified approach. Officials from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development are working with colleagues in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development on a consultation document which will set out the thinking on how to tackle the disease. Suggestions will include genotyping - a method of breeding resistance to scrapie into the sheep population - and other more focused eradication measures. It is hoped that the consultation document will be issued in the next few weeks. Our overall aim is to have a programme of eradication in place by the end of December.

As the Minister is aware, the findings of recent research in Britain into BSE in sheep gave cause for concern. Is the Minister still going ahead with her plan despite the revelations arising from that research?

Yes, BSE can be transmitted experimentally to sheep. UK sheep had access to contaminated feed in the 1990s, so, theoretically, there could be a problem. Therefore it makes sense, from a number of points of view, to go ahead and try to eradicate the disease.

The problems that have arisen with the research were the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The problem with the research and the discovery of the mistake with the brains that were being examined would not have happened had it not been that the devolved Administrations, the Welsh scientists initially, asked for further DNA testing to ensure that there was no cross contamination. This was supported by the Scots and Northern Irish Ministers. If that had not happened, we would not be in the fortunate situation of having discovered the mistake.

I want to make three points. First, BSE can be transmitted experimentally to sheep, and UK sheep had access to contaminated feed. Research work will continue in order to establish whether there is a risk. It remains important that we have a contingency plan to deal with any research findings that suggest that it does. The draft form of the plan has recently been put to the industry in Northern Ireland for comment by early December. I ask recipients to consider it and let my Department have their views.

Secondly, the Northern Ireland scrapie eradication plan that my Department is developing will still go ahead, as we know that the theoretical potential is there for sheep to harbour BSE that may be masquerading as scrapie, which we have to eliminate from the Northern Ireland flock.

Thirdly, an important point is that the research that is underway in GB is looking mainly if not entirely at the situation in GB, and there is an obvious temptation for conclusions from that work to be applied to Northern Ireland. Therefore my officials have asked the Food Standards Agency to ensure that any research into the risks of sheep meat for consumers takes specific account of our lower reported incidents of scrapie, BSE and sporadic and variant CJD. This suggests that any problems presented by sheep - and there may be none - may be lower here than in GB.

The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development (Mr Savage): Can the Minister say what steps have been taken for anthrax control in the light of the current threat posed by international terrorism?

That question is out of order. A supplementary question should be that, and I know of no microbiological connection between anthrax bacillus and scrapie. That is wide of the mark.

I think you will be proved very badly wrong if I may say so. From a microbiological point of view there is no connection between the two at all.

It is not my responsibility anyway; it is the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety's.

It is unlikely to be your responsibility, indeed, Minister. That is correct, but the question was not supplementary to the preliminary question.

5.

asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what recent co-operation has taken place between her Department and the Department of Agriculture, Food & Rural Development in the Republic of Ireland on foot-and-mouth disease; and to make a statement.

(AQO 323/01)

I met Joe Walsh on 4 October in a meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council. At that meeting we discussed various aspects of the effort to tackle foot-and-mouth disease. We agreed that the already high levels of co-operation between our two Departments would continue, particularly on the precedent of maintaining an all-island defence against the disease's being introduced from GB by ports and airports, both North and South.

Did the Minister discuss with Minister Walsh the terms of reference of the review of foot-and-mouth disease that she announced recently?

Yes, I assure Mr Fee that we discussed the planned reviews of the respective foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks, and we both agreed that the cross-border dimension would be important. We will be contributing to the review in the Republic, and it will be contributing to ours.

6.

asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what progress is being made with the European Union towards achieving low-incidence status for BSE; and to make a statement.

(AQO 313/01)

There is no realistic possibility of the European Union considering our case for low-incidence status for BSE until a reasonable proportion of the results of our current screening tests, and those of the other EU member states, are known. So far, we have tested over 8,300 animals and have only found 17 confirmed positives. That augurs well because the proportion of positives is very low, and if that continues it will show that Northern Ireland has a very low incidence of BSE. However, we have only tested a small proportion of our total, so it is early days yet to be drawing conclusions. It will not be until the end of the year that we will see the comparable results from the other European countries, to see where we stand. I cannot change the pace of the testing, but as soon as the time is right and we have a good case to make, I will make that case.

I thank the Minister for her positive reply. Can she give any indication of the incidence of BSE in other European countries compared with Northern Ireland? In the context of those statistics, could the possibility of accelerating the removal of the export ban be considered?

I cannot state yet what the true incidence of BSE is in other countries. The surveillance results published so far by the Commission give the figures only for July - the first month of the EU-wide testing. It will be the end of the year before sufficient surveillance data emerges to give a reliable statistical base from which to make true comparisons. I am confident that the incidence in Northern Ireland will compare very favourably with that in other countries. We will be properly able to argue our case only when we have the figures. We have already tested 8,300 animals - we have 50,000 to test - so it is difficult to draw a conclusion from such a small number, although the indications are encouraging.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>