The debate is timely, because many parents and children suffer as a result of this disability. They feel that they are on their own and are not being taken seriously, especially by the health authorities. My reason for tabling this motion is that many children and parents are suffering. This has been a neglected disability for many years.

I want a screening system to be introduced because there must be a more formal process of diagnosing those children who suffer from autism. The current system is too haphazard. I accept the amendment's sentiments; it is trying to address the issue of training. However, I would not want the amendment to be an escape clause, for we would be failing the people who want us to seriously address the issue.

It is completely unfair that families who suspect that their child has major behavioural problems feel that they must seek a private medical consultation with autism experts. There is something wrong with our healthcare system if we neglect those parents who feel that they need that due attention. That is why I chose carefully the words of the motion. I accept that all who have spoken during the debate have done so in good faith. They are genuinely concerned about the problem and want to try to improve the situation.

John Kelly made the case for the amendment. He said that early diagnosis is the crucial issue - a point that was emphasised by several other Members. Parents are seeking reassurance on that issue. They want early diagnosis so that intervention and treatment can occur. Bob Coulter brought real-life experience to the debate when he spoke about how he has witnessed the problems of children who suffer from this disability. I was encouraged by his words, and I accept the sentiments and the content of his speech.

Bob Coulter and other Members praised the work of PAPA. It has been in existence for only 12 years in Northern Ireland, yet it has highlighted this difficulty and disability in a co-ordinated way. I pay tribute to those who are involved in voluntary organisations like PAPA, who are trying to highlight the problems and issues. They seek to bring it to the attention of the authorities that help is required.

Mrs Iris Robinson also supported the sentiments of the motion and made reference to autistic adults. There is a feeling that they are often abandoned. In particular, elderly parents worry about what will happen to their adult autistic son or daughter. They worry about who will look after their child when they die.

There is ongoing debate about which diagnostic technique to use. I am not entering that debate, but I hope that the Health Department will not cop out because it feels that no definitive technique of screening exists.

This is not a time for cop out. I appeal to the Minister to see that her Department takes the issue seriously and gets involved in co-ordinating the efforts of the health boards and trusts across Northern Ireland. The people of Tyrone and Fermanagh should not be neglected. I know people in Belfast who have had to fight very hard, and attend case meetings, to try to get people to take the issue seriously.

Parents are annoyed because they feel that they must fight and agitate. They often feel that the medical professionals doubt their sincerity when they try to get them to take the issue seriously. I support the National Health Service, but I find it intolerable that people must resort to private medical consultation.

I ask the Member to bring his remarks to a close.

I thank the Minister for attending the debate and for the content of her speech. I appeal to her to take the matter seriously. Let us have action in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. I support the task force endeavours to have proper co-ordination of the healthcare diagnosis, the treatment and the education provision needed.

In the interests and spirit of what has been a worthwhile debate, I accept the amendment. However, the amendment must be understood as being an addition to the spirit and sentiment of my motion. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety must take the matter seriously and work in collaboration with the Department of Education.

Question, That the amendment be made, put and agreed to.

Burns Report

TOP

I beg to move

One reason for tabling the motion was to give Members an opportunity to comment on a report provided for a Department in the local Administration that has generated the most widespread contributions and responses from Members and from people in our constituencies.

I receive four or five letters every day from people who are concerned about the Burns Report and the way in which the Minister intends to use it to follow his narrow socialist agenda. Despite assurances from the Minister - and there have been many - that he has not made his mind up on the issue, and that he wishes to listen to the consultations and the responses to the consultations, he is clearly on record, from the first day that he took the job, as saying what he intends to do. He described the selection process as "inhumane" - something that many of us took with a pinch of salt, given that it came from someone who carried out, and who directed others to carry out, some of the most inhumane actions in Northern Ireland in the past 30 years.

When the Minister spoke to the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) recently, he said that academic selection must go. That was hardly the view of someone approaching the subject with an open mind. Hence, widespread concern exists in the community that a Minister, because of the system in the Assembly, can make decisions for which he need not account. He can impose his will on the education system in Northern Ireland.

I have no doubt about what the Minister intends to do; he has made that clear. He intends to destroy the existing system as systematically and as totally as he and his compatriots destroyed the centre of Londonderry when he was the commander of the IRA there. The Burns Report has provided him with educational Semtex with which he intends to destroy the system. I am not sure about Mr Burns's intention; however, I know what the Minister's intention is, because he has made it clear.

There is a public outcry, and desperation is creeping into the Minister's actions as he goes around looking for support. He is a man who knows that his day is going. He will be Minister for only one more year, and I assure the House that, come the next election, when the DUP is the biggest party in the Assembly, neither Martin McGuinness nor any of his compatriots will be in the Northern Ireland Executive. Unlike David Trimble, when we say that we shall not have terrorists in Government, we mean that we shall not have terrorists in Government.

There is urgency about the task that the Minister has set himself. He is now trying to go on the offensive. A massive propaganda campaign is under way, which would have done Joseph Goebbels proud, in which £600,000 of taxpayers' money is being used to produce 15,000 videos and to circulate pamphlets to every household in Northern Ireland that outlines the Minister's case for destroying the education system. The pamphlet is not a balanced piece of work; it is full of inaccuracies. However, it has been paid for by taxpayers' money. I have no doubt that, should the Minister feel that the pamphlet is not going to convince people, the IRA/Sinn Féin election machine will go into business, and there will be multiple collections of forms to ensure that the outcome that he wants for his mini-referendum is achieved.

I could say much about the Burns Report, but I shall leave some items to other Members for comment. Let us look at issues such as the collegiate system, with the levels of bureaucracy that that will entail. There will be a board of principals; a collegiate support centre; a collegiate liaison council and a collegiate standing conference. We are heading down a road in education that is being disparaged in health, where there are levels of bureaucracy in the form of trusts. Almost every week in the Assembly I hear people railing against such bureaucracy.

Does the Member agree that the only thing missing is a collegiate civic forum?

Even that might come eventually. The proposal has not been costed, and there is no indication as to how it will interact with the education and library boards - that is an entire debate in itself. The costing issue has been dismissed by the assertion that the proposal will not really be that much more expensive.

Under the Burns proposals, everyone will be entitled to school transport in the collegiate system. Mr Burns seems to think that that will not cost a great deal of money.

The Burns Report states:

That could multiply the transport budget by five, and yet no indication is given of that. That is a whole debate at which we must look. However, Burns's contention that we should end academic selection is central to it all. The Minister has tried to portray this as ending selection, but that is a fraud, because Burns does not say that. Burns says that he wishes to see an end to academic selection, but he then goes on to say that schools will be oversubscribed for a long time and that there will have to be some selection criteria for those schools.

Mr Burns states that that selection criteria will be fairer because they will be based on parental choice. However, as some schools will be oversubscribed, it stands to reason that parental choice will be a fraud because parents will not have a free choice. That is why he then had to introduce all kinds of social criteria, not academic criteria. The most damning social criterion of all is a pupil's proximity to the school. He said that it would be used only as a last resort. Most principals whom I have spoken to have said that the first three criteria - parental choice, siblings at the school and whether your parent is a teacher at the school - would leave about 95% of the places undecided. Therefore, it will come down to where a pupil lives or whether a special case can be made.

Believe me, when it comes to making special cases, people who are socially advantaged will have the advantage, not the people who are socially deprived. Those who are socially advantaged can get reports from consultant psychologists. We shall not move away from selection, but we shall move away from selection that is based on ability and the best educational route for a youngster to selection that is based on social standing. If any Member believes that the socially deprived have a better chance under a selection system that depends on their social standing, they must live in the clouds. We shall not have a fair system, despite the fact that all the arguments that the Minister has advanced are about the system being fairer.

The most bizarre argument that I have heard from the Minister is that he now wishes to become the champion of working-class Protestant children. It is a pity that he did not think about that 30 years ago when he was blowing them up, shooting them and making them orphans. Anyone who believes that Martin McGuinness is concerned about the well-being of Protestant children from working class backgrounds needs their head felt.

The other argument is that our system has failed. Mr Burns makes that argument, and the Minister repeats it parrot-like ad infinitum - some people would say ad nauseam. The Minister seems to revise his opinion all the time; yesterday he said that we are not as good at the top end as we should be, and we are no good at the bottom end. He tells us that he was deprived, that he was denied a good education, and that that is why he had to become a butcher boy; of course, he then moved on to being a master butcher. However, I would have thought that at least he could have understood his press statements and the answers that he has given to the House. If he did not understand them, perhaps his officials could have explained them to him.

The Minister said in a press release that he was delighted that schools in Northern Ireland were improving their performance and that year 12 pupils who got five or more GCSEs had risen to 56% this year. That figure was better than in England or Wales, where only 48% of students reached that standard. According to his press release, we do better at the top end. He gave an answer to my friend, Mr Weir, less than a month ago, and I am sure that his short-term memory cannot be that bad. He said that when it comes to the bottom end, we have done better than Scotland, England or Wales over the past five years with regard to the number of students who leave school without any GCSE qualifications. Therefore, where is this nonsense coming from that we have a system, which tries to slot people in according to what is best for them educationally, that hurts the very good students, the very bad students or those in between? That is not the case on the basis of the figures that he has provided to the House and to the public.

Children have different abilities and aptitudes and need different educational experiences, which, ironically, Mr Burns talks about in his guiding principles. Youngsters' abilities are different and varied, yet the Minister wants to fit them all into schools that cater for all abilities. He cannot have it both ways. If one says that children have different aptitudes, skills and academic ability - and they have - one must have different routes open to them. The alternative is to take the discredited system, which was introduced in England in the 1960s, that says that everyone should go to the same kind of school, supposedly in the interests of equality, for exactly the same training in spite of their differing abilities.

Does the Member agree that the present system of education on the mainland is withdrawing from the comprehensive system and passively recognising that it has been a failure?

They use the words of the Prime Minister's adviser that the system, which the Minister and Mr Burns wish to impose in Northern Ireland, is "bog standard". The Minister takes his socialism to the nth degree when he says:

Does that mean that everyone must leave school with 15 GCSE A-grade passes, or that everyone must leave school with a mediocre education? That is the only meaning that I can take from that statement, and that is what is driving his agenda.

Mr Burns talks about the pupil profile, which would include more than simply academic ability and testing, and says that that should be available to all parents. I have a couple of difficulties with that. First, there is no evidence that it will advantage the people it is supposed to advantage. When we had this in the 1960s, it was found to be even more socially divisive because it fell down when it came to extracurricular activities. Many middle-class parents can provide more support for youngsters than parents from working-class areas, where there is not the same income to support a wide variety of experience - dancing classes, music classes, et cetera.

We must be careful if we go down that route. If we want to measure the wide ability of youngsters - their sporting talent, their musical, dramatic or artistic talents - that is fair enough. However, objective testing is still required and puts everyone on a level keel. That testing leaves teachers less open to the accusation of favouritism, and in an age of litigation leaves teachers less open to court action. Teachers would be forced to be the sole arbiters of those pupil profiles, and they would be mad to go down that route. Outside objective testing is required, and whether that is done over a long period with less intrusive tests or as one test a year in each of the final three years, it does not matter. However, the principle of having outside testing is an important one.

There is no point in the reports, when available, going only to the parents; they must also be made available to the receiving schools. The argument against that in the Burns Report is that that will put teachers under undue pressure. However, the report later states that once the schools received the reports, they could be used to stream youngsters. Where is the logic in that? If the reports are to be used by the schools to stream the youngsters, why do the schools not have them in the first place? Moreover, how do the schools protect the teachers by saying that the reports are only used after the youngsters are admitted, when they can be used to stream them? That does not make sense. It is important that the parents should have sight of the reports with an objective measured by some outside agency. The schools should also receive the reports.

Another argument is that the selection procedure fails youngsters. If the Minister believes that, it shows his academic shallowness. Is it so that suddenly, when children reach the age of 10, in the month of November when they do the tests, they move from being successes to being failures? Academic and educational failure has its origins long before children ever sit a test - failure sometimes takes root shortly after birth. The environment into which they are born or their early years in school may affect them. The problem needs to be addressed then and not by scrapping the means of testing youngsters to see the best way forward for post-primary education. I did want to mention post-primary schools, but I am sure that other Members will do that later in the debate.

The Burns Report is a recipe for disaster. In the hands of the Minister of Education it is a dangerous weapon. I hope that the Minister will not try to bypass the Assembly when making decisions on the subject and that the Assembly will show good balance and common sense when making its judgement.

I have received many requests to speak to this motion, and, in order to facilitate as many of them as possible, I will set an initial time limit of seven minutes.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You said that you would set an initial time limit of seven minutes. Does that mean that subsequent Members who speak might have more than seven minutes?

Absolutely not. I used the word "initial" to allow me to reduce the time from seven minutes if necessary.

I am glad to have the opportunity to participate in this important debate. Members have had the chance to consider in detail the proposals in the Burns Report, and they can now comment on them and offer constructive criticism.

The Ulster Unionist Party has several concerns about the proposals and is therefore unable to endorse them. It is considering the recommendations in detail and analysing their potential impact on education in Northern Ireland. However, it will be making more workable recommendations for education, and it encourages full participation in the consultation process.

The main proposals of the Burns Report can be outlined as follows: an end to the transfer tests; the prohibition of academic selection for grammar schools; the possible closure of up to 40 schools - a worrying prospect that would have a serious, adverse impact, especially on rural areas; the development of pupil profiles; the requirement of all schools to use the same specified admission criteria; and the creation of networks of post-primary schools.

The basic conclusion of the Burns Report is the introduction of a comprehensive system of education. The report places much emphasis on the need to ensure that there will be equity among schools and pupils. However, it does that at the expense of a sharp examination of our schools' standards and how they might be improved. That lack of focus on objective standards and the failure to explain how the proposals would raise standards are serious shortfalls.

Most people accept that there are problems with the transfer test. However, the recommendation that academic selection should end is also unacceptable. That sort of approach would inevitably lead to the creation of a comprehensive system of education, and it is disingenuous of the report's supporters to argue otherwise.

One problem is that it is doubtful that there is support for a comprehensive system. Parents' views must be considered, and the report contains no evidence to support the view that such a system would improve standards overall. The experience of the comprehensive system in GB suggests that the reverse is true. It would be ironic if Northern Ireland were to establish a comprehensive system, when GB is attempting to move away from that failed system.

The establishment of pupil profiles is sensible; however, receiving schools must be able to view them. What is the use of such profiles if they cannot be used to help place pupils in the most appropriate schools? The Burns admission criteria also show a lack of understanding of how the system is likely to work. I believe that they would lead ultimately to selection by postcode. The report appears to overlook the fact that once distance is a prime consideration, that will exacerbate the problems of oversubscription. At present oversubscription is limited because it is known that some pupils are likely to be admitted to popular schools, so it is incorrect to argue that distance will come into play only as a last resort tie-breaker, and the Assembly must consider that.

On the creation of collegiates, it is desirable to have closer co-operation between neighbouring schools. However, the problem rests with the report's view that the arrangements will be central to the system and will create, in size and composition, a system that is so bureaucratic that it will not work practically. It must also be stressed that there is no experience, internationally or otherwise - there is not even a pilot scheme - on which to base a collegiate system. It is worth noting that, given the announcement made by the Northern Catholic bishops last week, the collegiate proposal contained in the Burns report is dead in the water.

The Minister is mishandling the consultation process that he instigated. It is no longer being conducted in a fair and equitable manner. Unfortunately, officials in the Department of Education appear to have allowed themselves to become mere cheerleaders for the type of education system advocated by the Minister and his party. That goes beyond their remit and is not acceptable. The video that was produced by the Department, and the household pamphlet that is in the making, are clear examples of the lack of impartiality shown by the Department, which will not assist the proper consideration and resolution of this important issue. In relation to the household pamphlet, provision should be made for granting public funds to allow groups that are opposed to those ill-thought-out proposals to put their alternative proposals to parents, thus preserving objectivity.

There are many more issues; however, time does not permit me to address them. I want to apologise to Sammy Wilson, who proposed the motion, because I may not be able to stay until the end of this important debate. There is no discourtesy intended.

It is important that people realise that Northern Ireland needs an education system that is effective and well-resourced. We need a system that is open, inclusive, flexible enough to cater for all needs, and responsive to the society that it serves. It is vital that there be a new all-ability system to offer education on an inclusive basis, guaranteeing equality of opportunity for all.

There has been much opposition to selection, on the grounds that the system is unfair, divisive, ineffective and damaging to children and society. I acknowledge the benefits that were brought about when the 11-plus was introduced. In a post-war society, in which standard education finished at age 14, it opened the door to secondary-level education for a new generation of children. However, we are now in the twenty-first century, and the system must be adapted to reflect the needs of modern society.

I broadly welcome the Burns Report. However, I have reservations that I will refer to later. In general, the principle and objectives of the report reflect the intention to develop a high-quality education system that will allow each young person to develop his or her full potential and will reflect the value of each child. The report acknowledges the untold damage that was inflicted on generations of children by inaccurate testing, artificial segregation and damage to fragile self-confidence. The assessment that the current system is inflexible, fragmented, wasteful of valuable resources and lacks equality of opportunity is valid also.

There is a compelling case for the fundamental reform of transfer procedures from primary to post-primary schools. My office has received numerous letters from parents, all agreeing that the 11-plus should be abolished and that academic selection for 11-year-olds should end. There is also broad support for increased emphasis on choice. That can be seen as a positive step towards equality and can bring benefits in human terms by reducing the damage to self-esteem.

However, as I said before, I have concerns about equality of opportunity and parity of esteem. There is still an apparent intention to retain distinct types of schools that tend towards more vocational studies. I have reservations about categorising 11-year-old children in that way, even if it is not intended to be fixed or final. The proposals to broaden options at post-14 years should help to improve parity of esteem, though it may be difficult to change attitudes while retaining distinctive pathways from age 11.

I am also concerned that, despite all the good intentions, streaming in line with social and economic backgrounds, rather than individual preference or potential, will still occur. That is backed up by European evidence that academic school populations are made up of children from better-off backgrounds. The high academic standards of the present can be maintained and offered to more children through the teaching of 11- to 18-year-olds together, alongside improved vocational and social development.

The report recommends change. It is at the consultation stage, and nothing has been set in stone. That is why this debate is important. It is also important that grammar schools should not feel threatened or cause panic in the community by informing parents that their children will not be eligible for entrance under the new criteria. The main principles behind the report should be increased opportunity and choice for all. The review body has been most thorough in dealing with issues such as the transfer to post-primary education and the incorporation of the wide-ranging needs of young people in schools.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Burns Report, even though it is the second time that the matter has been raised. We could go over the old arguments ad infinitum, but that would not change who says what in the House. I thought that we were having some impact on the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson of the Education Committee by agreeing that there was a need for change in education and that people want that change. That is open to debate and disagreement.

The Burns Report has taken us to a new level in the education debate in that we now have a way of finding the change that meets present needs, rather than those of 40 or 50 years ago. It must be done; people agree that it must be done, including teachers and parents. That fundamental point must be addressed. Some parents in some areas are not being addressed by their Assembly representatives. The situation has not changed over the past 50 years or more.

This debate is about equality and giving a voice to everyone, especially the most vulnerable and the most disadvantaged in our society. Research by Gallagher and Smith on the impact of academic selection has clearly shown that there is a strong correlation between the transfer test and a child's socio-economic status. The percentage of grammar school pupils who are entitled to free school meals ranges from a fraction of one per cent to around twenty-five per cent. In secondary schools it ranges from 20% to 70%. In other words, of all post-primary pupils who are entitled to free school meals, 15% are in grammar schools and 85% are in other schools.

Several arguments are made in favour of grammar schools. It is said that they offer opportunities for able children to succeed irrespective of socio-economic status. However, the main indicator of socio-economic status is the percentage of pupils who are entitled to free school meals, which offers stark and startling evidence to the contrary. It is argued that selection is made on the grounds of academic excellence, not according to a pupil's socio-economic background. Schools, representatives and others should note the evidence that the poorest children in the Western Education and Library Board and South-Eastern Education and Library Board areas are between five and 10 times more likely to be in a school other than a grammar establishment.

Another argument is that significant numbers of children from poorer backgrounds attend grammar schools; that is not so. Academic selection and greater affluence are closely and inextricably linked. The argument that a comprehensive system would lead to selection by postcode is arrogant and hypocritical. The polarisation by postcode, as evidenced by the figures, is astounding.

That grammar schools ensure high standards of academic excellence for few is dramatically outlined in these and other figures. Grammar schools are not for the many, and, in particular, they are not for children from poorer backgrounds. The argument is for the preservation of privilege; it is not for the equalisation of opportunity.

People claim that grammar schools serve communities well and that children from poorer backgrounds are admitted to them. In neither case is that true, and that is especially so regarding children from the Protestant community. Who is representing the Protestant children from the areas that I mentioned?

A point was made about the Minister's concern. The Minister is concerned about children in all areas. Do those who purport to support grammar schools and academic-based selection represent everyone in their constituencies? Do they represent people in deprived areas? Do they represent those who vote for them in the matter of education, given the figures that I have outlined? People in such areas would agree that they have certainly not been represented over the past 50 years. The problem is that people have voted along sectarian lines and have failed to use their votes to help themselves educationally.

The problem is academic-based selection. People have been carried along by the arguments made today by Sammy Wilson and others, without examining the subject in detail. It is important that the issue be debated in such a way as to bring us into a new era, and that it should not be about simply sticking to the same old sectarian lies.

Parents, particularly those from deprived areas, need to examine the arguments closely. There are deprived areas in many of the constituencies of Members who purport to represent people as MLAs. People must look closely at what will be best for their children's future. What will represent the best future for all children, not just the few? Do the representatives of the 8% who attend grammar schools from deprived areas, particularly TSN areas, represent all children in those areas properly? Are they representing the few elitist groups who are pushing them harder in this debate? Go raibh maith agat.

The debate is opportune as there is obviously an interest among the public. However, I was concerned and disappointed by some of Sammy Wilson's speech. Like many Members, I have been inundated with letters from parents who are concerned about the repercussions of the Burns Report and its implementation.

Last October, I said on behalf of the Alliance Party that we welcomed the Burns Report as a basis for studying alternatives to the discredited 11-plus transfer procedure, but that we were - even then - concerned about implementing it in its entirety.

There are practical problems with the setting up of collegiates, which would, it is hoped, provide a flexible education system that would benefit all children. The advantage of such a system is that it would require real working together if it were to be a success for all pupils. The one thing that was generally agreed by most people is that the 11-plus is an inequitable system that divides children at an unnecessarily early age into successes and failures. We must make it a priority that, whatever comes out of this report, the trauma and tension for pupils, parents and teachers should become a thing of the past.

The new system must be flexible enough to allow all children, with the help of teachers and parents, to be able, at a responsible stage - not during the transfer from primary to post-primary education - to make their own decisions about their educational future. That could be regarded as personal selection, but one that is made with the knowledge of ones capabilities and aspirations.

The Alliance Party will be making its submission, as will other parties, after we have studied in detail this report with the party's education group. It will then be approved by the party council, so I will not make specific comments. However, our view is that a qualifying entrance test should not be the method of transfer. Also, more investment should be made, whatever the system, in nursery education. Closer attention could be paid to the integrated system, which the Alliance Party feels is inclusive, and which could be seen as a possible pilot scheme to show the impact of the abolition of the 11-plus in Northern Ireland. We will be discussing the appropriate number of collegiates, because there may not be a need for so many. We will be looking at practicalities such as transport - the transfer between schools depending on the curriculum subjects that a child chooses. We should not throw out the good aspects of secondary and grammar schools that have existed until now, but we must ensure that all children are allowed to make their own free choices with the acceptance of parents and the advice of teachers.

I want to read part of one of the many letters that I received in support of grammar schools. The writer concludes:

I, and the party's education group, see no problem with that, and we will be examining the matter.

As I said earlier, there are questions to be asked. The Minister will be aware of them. We must know where the money for that will come from. There are worries about the capital programme and other budgets. Last week the Education Committee was deliberating over the bids. So, where will the money come from? There are worries about the pupil profiles. There is also a very practical problem that we cannot escape: how will transfer between schools in sensitive areas be achieved so that the system works properly? We must also look at training and the morale of teachers, and the contribution of parents must not be undermined. It must be clarified so that they can play their part in full.

Given the years of trauma that we have experienced, we need radical proposals that will allow modern society to develop. Children and education have changed, and we must ensure that education is in keeping with our hopes for a good future for our children. We should always remember that pupils must be the first priority. We must provide systems that will allow them to achieve their potential, whoever they are. That will mean a better future for them and for society in general. I support the motion.

The Burns Report has two core proposals. One involves the destruction of the grammar school system, the most successful sector of secondary education; the other involves the introduction of a so-called collegiate system that would effectively introduce comprehensive education to Northern Ireland. The entire thrust of the Burns Report is contrary to the best current educational thinking and Government policy.

The argument about the transfer system - effectively the destruction of the grammar school sector - seems to be based on an aversion to academic selection, with which the 11-plus test is identified. Therefore, it is important to ask what type of test it is. The current transfer test essentially examines English, mathematics and science. In other words, it tests numeracy and literacy skills and is, therefore, an examination of two areas of education. If pupils are not proficient in numeracy and literacy, they could not possibly be proficient in anything else, because those skills are prerequisites for any educational success.

Northern Ireland is well down the list of international comparisons of literacy and numeracy skills. However, we are not exceptional, as the same situation applies to the Republic and the rest of the UK. Instead of doing away with this type of testing and the emphasis at primary level, which is where we lay the basis for literacy and numeracy achievement, we should be trying to enhance the focus on English, science and mathematics as prerequisites for success at secondary and tertiary education.

Nobody wants to say that a particular form of transfer that properly focuses on English and mathematics should not be assessed occasionally - of course it should. A cursory reading of the Gallagher Report shows that it failed to make any substantive case against the present system. Its case was based on anecdotal evidence, mainly from secondary school teachers who were expressing their disillusion and a lack of morale, rather than giving an objective evaluation of what the test means for students.

Pupils must transfer from primary to secondary education at some point. We can debate from now until doomsday about the age at which that should take place, but again the Gallagher Report did not mention the need for radical change. At 11 years of age, students will have been at primary school for about six years; they mature earlier. By the time children have reached age 11, they almost certainly want to move to secondary education.

Therefore, the case for abolishing the transfer system, with the emphasis on those prerequisites, has not been made. The idea that we can dismiss focus on English and mathematics by derogatorily categorising them as academic is nonsense.

The transfer test, and the fact that we must have a system that enables students to progress from primary school to secondary school in order to get the education that is most suited to them, is not the problem. The problem is failure in the non-grammar sector. The level of achievement in that sector is appalling. A vast number of students - probably in excess of 60% - leave the sector with virtually no qualifications. That must be addressed to ensure that children outside the grammar sector are placed in another secondary stream that can offer them highly rated vocational and technical education. If there were real choice for students in the secondary sector, involving highly rated technical education and grammar school education, the sense of failure associated with the current transfer system would disappear. I remember my primary school days. Children who left primary school to go to technical college were proud of that achievement. They felt no sense of failure.

Members have mentioned social deprivation, which is an important issue. In looking at educational achievement in certain sections of the community, Members must face the fact that, in many areas of Northern Ireland, the family and social infrastructure for success in anything, including education, is entirely absent. Members must realise that if they decide to pour more money into those areas they might as well pour it into a bottomless pit, because they will make no significant change to what such people can achieve.

I am intrigued by the mindset that would want to destroy the best in education in Northern Ireland and do nothing to improve the worst. I imagine that it belongs to a person who did not achieve anything and is determined that no one else will.

I thank the Member for East Belfast, Mr Sammy Wilson, for tabling the take-note motion. Members' discussions are timely. I welcome the abolition of the 11-plus. The Burns Report does not go far enough for my party. It is messing about with the idea of collegiates, while trying to keep those in grammar schools happy. If we are to address those issues, we need a comprehensive system. If we wanted to do something about children's education, we would not start at age 11 - we should start from birth.

The previous Member to speak, Mr Roche, said that he would not waste money on people in socially deprived areas. That is not the issue. We must be concerned about the start that people get in life. The difficulty in society in the UK is that we accept that care starts at birth and finishes at age three, at which point the Minister of Education takes over. That should not be the case. There must be a seamless transition between care and education. People from deprived areas do not have the same opportunities, because not enough is done for them from birth to age three.

It has been proven in Scandinavian countries and elsewhere that a strategy for the years from birth to age six works. We should not put four-year-old children in school uniforms behind desks. It is submitted elsewhere that children should be taught how to interact through play - a measure that has not been adopted in our society. Failure to adopt such measures prevents working-class Protestants from attaining success.

Whether those on the Unionist Benches like it or not, I know that a person brought up in my community as a working-class Protestant or Loyalist or Unionist - whatever you wish to call it - has a one-in-eight chance of going to a grammar school. That is a social injustice. A person brought up on the Falls Road as a Republican or Nationalist has a one-in-three chance of going to a grammar school. There is something very wrong with that. Are people telling me that there is something genetically wrong with Protestants because they cannot achieve? That is what Mr Roche said. Given the opportunity, those people could achieve as much as anyone else. However, they are not given that opportunity, and we must address that issue.

Burns continually mentions pupil profiles. What use is a pupil profile to someone from north Belfast? Some 37% of 11-year-old Protestants in north Belfast have a reading age of nine. Numeracy and literacy must be dealt with between the ages of 0 and 6. The Burns Report alone will not solve the problem - other measures need to happen if progress is to be made.

Primary school teachers say that when children begin primary school they are not ready, and they blame the nursery teacher. The principals of secondary schools say that when children begin secondary school they are not ready and that they have a reading age of nine, when it should be 11. We have got it wrong, and we must correct it.

Members have been talking about selection at the age of 11 and the evidence for its effectiveness. When Sir Cyril Burt introduced selection, he had only anecdotal evidence - he had no empirical evidence to suggest that a child should be tested at the age of 11. Primary education covers a child's formative years, and children must work in all-ability classes. Primary school teachers will say that their job is to teach children, but secondary school teachers will say that they teach subjects. We have got that wrong. The children should be at the centre of the system - they should decide where they go after primary school.

We have heard nonsense about grammar schools being vocational and everything else. Everyone in the Chamber knows that parents send their children to grammar schools because the children are academically bright and the parents want their children to achieve. People do not send their children to grammar schools to learn how to be joiners or bricklayers. Do not be kidded that the grammar schools will change. Those schools are elitist and exist for those pupils who perform best. Such schools do not want pupils who cannot achieve good grades or who will bring their results down. Grammar schools want only the best pupils, and we must focus on that issue.

It is important that we look at the source of the problems. If we do not do that, and if we do not address the matter of children's early years, we shall not win. Burns has a discussion on the issue, but that is all that it should be. The report should be used to help us to get on to the right track. We should look at the Burns Report - especially from a Unionist point of view. We could throw the report out tomorrow, but we must address the problem of getting children from working-class backgrounds to achieve. We must also remember the statistics on the educational achievements of Catholics and Protestants, and ask why Catholics are doing better.

In north Belfast, 67% of Protestant children who leave school at the age of 16 do not have any formal educational qualifications. What does that say to people in that society?

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>