|
The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.
TOP
Mr Speaker:
I wish to refer to two points of order raised yesterday. In a reply to Rev Dr William McCrea, I directed his attention to Standing Orders in respect of exclusion motions. I should, of course, have directed him to the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The precise reference is section 30(5)(a).
Mr Attwood, on a further point of order, asked me whether I would make correspondence from the Chief Constable available to the House. I have taken further advice on the matter, and I have placed a copy of the letter from the Chief Constable in the Assembly Library.
Mr P Robinson:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you confirm that the Chief Constable, in his correspondence to you, took nothing away from the necessity for such a search of the Sinn Féin/IRA offices but merely from the nature of the operation and the number of police officers deployed?
Mr Speaker:
The Member refers to the content of the letter. It is fair to say that the letter speaks for itself.
TOP
Mr Speaker:
I have received a letter from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in respect of the Second Stage of the Strategic Investment and Regeneration of Sites Bill. I wish to draw the letter to the attention of the House. The letter reads as follows:
"We are writing to request your permission to withdraw the Second Stage of the Strategic Investment and Regeneration of Sites Bill scheduled for Tuesday 8 October.
We regret that, due to the current exceptional circumstances, we will not be available for the second reading of the Bill.
We are aware of the significance of this Bill and believe it is right that we should take it through the Assembly." —[Interruption].
Order.
"We apologise for being unable to be in the Assembly today and would very much appreciate if the Bill could be re-scheduled at the earliest opportunity."
Mr S Wilson:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to rush a piece of legislation to the House, admit that the legislation will not even go through the normal consultative process and then snub the House by refusing to come along to listen to the views of the House on this controversial legislation that is designed to add to their empire, to the quangos in Northern Ireland and to the cost of administration?
Mr Speaker:
I am somewhat puzzled by the Member’s remarks because they bear no relation to what I have just read out. In case the Member was not listening or is unclear, he said that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister do not intend to come to hear the House. The letter actually says that they wish to withdraw the Second Stage because they do wish to be here to hear the views of the House. I trust that that is clear. What is being requested is that the Bill’s Second Stage not be moved today but be moved at a later stage. It is not to be moved today because the First Minister and Deputy First Minister cannot be here. I trust that I have made clear what the letter says as distinct from what the Member said.
Mr Dodds:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Fantasy-land ideas continue in the light of that announcement. Do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister think that their junior Ministers are incompetent? I am sure that you will confirm that there is nothing to stop the junior Ministers in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister from proposing the Bill. They have filled in previously for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Is it not true that the Bill was rushed, as my Colleague Sammy Wilson has said? The Bill received no consultation at all with the relevant vested interests that must be consulted. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are probably so embarrassed by their lack of preparation that they are not in a position to come to the House today.
Mr Speaker:
Order. That is not a point of order. In respect of the Member’s comments about junior Ministers, they will speak for themselves, and the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister may speak for themselves —
Mr Dodds:
Then let them speak.
Mr Speaker:
Order. I would simply draw attention to the fact that the previous point of order raised by his Colleague was to the effect that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister would not wish to be here to hear the Assembly. I simply draw attention to that other point of order. However, I am here to address points of order of a procedural kind, not order of a political kind.
Mr B Hutchinson:
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. What will be the procedure with my amendment once suspension kicks in later this week?
Mr Speaker:
I can only refer to the first part of the Member’s question as far as order is concerned. At this juncture, I would consider his reasoned amendment still to stand for the present. There is simply a rescheduling of the time at which it would be taken. However, as far I am concerned, his reasoned amendment still stands.
His question is particularly appropriate because this is the first occasion on which there has been such a reasoned amendment to a Second Stage. Therefore it is worthwhile putting on record that this technical device to cause a Bill to fall will remain available to be used if the Member wishes to proceed with it when a further date for the Second Stage is scheduled.
TOP
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for a Department to book the Press Suite for eight hours so that no other party in the House can use it today?
Mr Speaker:
Yes. It is entirely in order for Members of the Assembly to book facilities, and it is not uncommon that it is done for a day, whether in respect of the Long Gallery, press facilities or other facilities. The matter was drawn to my attention, and I made some suggestions for other, I hope appropriate, facilities that may be able to be made available. I understand there is a degree of pressure as far as accommodation is concerned.
TOP
Mr Speaker:
I have received notice from the Minister of Education that he wishes to make a statement on the review of the post-primary education report on responses to consultation.
The Minister of Education (Mr M McGuinness): The publication of the Burns Report a year ago launched the second phase of the review that began with research by Prof Tony Gallagher and Prof Alan Smith into the effects of our selective system of secondary education. Our thanks are due to them for their extensive research, which provided the basis for the work of the post-primary review body.
We also owe a great debt of gratitude to Gerry Burns and the other members of the review body, and I want to place on record my thanks for their important work in producing such a helpful and thought-provoking report.
The review body’s report was far-reaching and challenging, and it stimulated thinking across the education sector and beyond about the full range of issues associated with post-primary education. It has been the catalyst for one of the biggest public debates seen in recent years — certainly the biggest in education.
When publishing the review body’s report for consultation, I invited comments on the proposals, suggestions for modifications to the proposals and suggestions for alternative arrangements. I extended the consultation period until 28 June 2002 to ensure that there was adequate time for everyone to consider the very complex and interrelated issues raised by the review of post-primary education.
From the outset I was determined to seek comments and views from as wide a range of interests as possible. To ensure that all sections of our community had the opportunity to respond, my Department conducted an unprecedented consultation with five strands. I sincerely thank the civil servants in my Department who assisted me throughout the process. Their work was of the highest quality, and I appreciate it very much.
I held 28 meetings with key interests between February and July to hear at first hand their views on the review body’s proposals and their suggestions for future post-primary arrangements. I invited written submissions, and over 1,300 responses were received from our education partners, schools, churches, higher and further education and training, business, political representatives, the voluntary and community sector, human rights and equality interests, and the public.
A detailed response booklet, together with supporting information in the form of a video and consultation pack, was issued to all schools, institutes of further and higher education, training organisations and a range of community groups. Booklets were returned by 510 schools. That represents 40% of our schools and constitutes the largest ever response from schools to a consultation exercise conducted by my Department.
A household response form was issued to each household seeking the public’s views on the Burns proposals. Over 200,000 household response forms were returned, which represented 16% of the adult population. Approximately one fifth of the people who returned the forms took the time to include additional comments. A survey was also carried out in a representative sample of 2,000 homes. The views of young people aged 14 to 19 were sought through a series of focus groups facilitated by the Northern Ireland Youth Forum.
10.45 am
I met the Committee for Education to discuss the arrangements for the consultation generally and also to discuss detailed aspects of the video and support materials. The Committee made helpful comments, many of which were incorporated into the materials. I thank the Chairperson of the Committee for Education, Danny Kennedy, and the members of the Committee, for their help. Last April, Sammy Wilson tabled a motion for an Assembly debate on the review body’s report. I thank him for initiating one of the best debates in the House on any issue. Members made thoughtful and considered contributions, and I listened carefully to all the views expressed.
Throughout the past year I have emphasised repeatedly my determination that the consultation on the post-primary review would be open and transparent. To ensure that it was, I made a commitment to produce a report drawing together the views expressed in the responses to the consultation and to put that before the public for everyone to see and consider. The report published today fulfils that commitment. Copies have been made available to MLAs, and the full report is available on my Department’s web site. Copies will be issued next week to all schools, our education partners and other organisations that responded to the consultation.
In their responses to the consultation, many organisations and individuals welcomed the opportunity afforded by the review to give their views on post-primary education. Many also commented favourably about the way in which the consultation was conducted. The consultation generated a healthy public debate. I have no doubt that that contributed to the impressive response received to the different strands. The debate was lively, sometimes passionate, but generally mature, well informed and constructive.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair.)
I know that our partners in the education and library boards, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS), the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education (NICIE), Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta, the Governing Bodies Association (GBA), the Transferor Representatives’ Council, the Northern Catholic bishops and many other organisations consulted widely with their members in formulating their responses.
Many schools held meetings to discuss the issues with staff and parents. Some also included pupils, to ensure that their responses reflected the views of the entire school community. There were many contributions to the debate in the newspapers, which played an important part in ensuring that the wider public was kept informed about the range of opinions and arguments on all the issues.
It is always easier to be critical of someone else’s proposals than to produce your own. I was particularly encouraged, therefore, that so many organisations devoted considerable time and energy to thinking through how our current arrangements could be improved. In their responses, they suggested modifications to the review body’s proposals or outlined alternative arrangements. I thank all of them for the time and commitment that they invested in the review.
My Department analysed the submissions over the summer months and has summarised the responses from all the strands in the consultation report published today. The report sets out the responses to each of the main recommendations in the review body’s report and includes other issues raised by respondents. The report provides a full picture of the consultation responses but has been kept to a manageable length to make it accessible to as many people as possible. In the interests of openness and transparency, anyone who wishes to delve further into the responses to the consultation can access my Department’s web site, where they will find copies of the main submissions received, along with further statistical tables analysing the responses from the household response forms, the omnibus survey and the detailed response booklet.
Three key messages emerged from the consultation: the demand for change; the obligation to focus on the needs of the child as a learner; and the emerging consensus on key issues. The responses to the consultation demonstrate a clear and unequivocal demand for change. Many respondents acknowledged the achievements of the current system but argued that it was not adequate or acceptable for the future. They criticised the current arrangements as unfair and failing to meet adequately the needs of learners. They pointed to the skewing of the primary school curriculum in favour of preparing children for the transfer test and to the detrimental and stressful impact that it has on children with the damage to their self-esteem and the creation of more losers than winners.
They argued that the current system perpetuates social and class divisions and militates against equality of opportunity — particularly for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. There was also a widespread view that the system is inflexible and does not recognise the differing needs of children.
Almost all responses to the consultation supported the abolition of the transfer test. Those who wish to retain academic selection also accepted that the transfer test and associated coaching are unsatisfactory and that change is needed. There is widespread dissatisfaction with the current post-primary arrangements. The feeling is that they do not meet the needs of children and are not adequate for our society and economy in the twenty-first century. There must be change, and the status quo is not an option.
The second message arising from the consultation is the obligation on all of us to focus on the needs of the child as a learner. Human rights and equality obligations demand that the rights of the child are taken fully into account in the post-primary review and that the links between education and other human rights are reinforced. There was almost universal support for the guiding principles proposed by the review body, and particularly for the first two. They stated that each young person should be valued equally and that all young people should be enabled to develop their talents to the full.
There was a widespread view among the main education partners that the prime focus must be on the needs of the child as a learner. Children develop at different rates and have a wide range of talents, aptitudes and learning abilities. A consistent theme in comments about future arrangements was that they should ensure that education provision meets the needs of individual pupils. Society and the economy in the twenty-first century require a broader range of knowledge and skills than in the last century, and new post-primary arrangements must offer a wide range of curricular options, promote parity of esteem for all curricular choices and pathways and provide flexibility between them.
The third message arising from the consultation is that there is an emerging consensus on key issues, including the problems of the current system and the changes that are needed. In some quarters the debate has been crudely and inaccurately presented as one between two clearly opposing camps. The reality is very different. It is clear from the responses to the consultation that there are significant areas of consensus. In other areas there is agreement over the aims and desired outcomes, but differences over how they can be best realised.
While there was little support in the consultation for the review body’s model in its entirety, varying degrees of support were expressed for individual recommendations. There was a strong consensus on a number of the review body’s proposals, including the guiding principles, the abolition of the transfer test, the development of a pupil profile — although views differed on what that should contain and how it should be used — and the need for greater co-operation and collaboration among schools.
The predominant view was that academic selection should be ended, although some support for this proposal was subject to certain conditions being met. Most of those closely involved in education, the education partners, primary and secondary schools and the churches, supported the ending of academic selection. However, there was also substantial opposition to this proposal, particularly from the grammar school sector and the majority of those responding to the household response form.
There was little support for two of the proposed admissions criteria, proximity to the pupil’s home and having a parent on the teaching staff of the school, and for collegiates as proposed in the review body’s report. The consultation has demonstrated consensus on the need for a common curriculum to age 14 and for 14 years as a more appropriate age for parents and pupils to consider and make choices about the curricular options or pathways that best suit the interests, needs and abilities of the young people. There was agreement that new arrangements should offer flexibility on curricular choice and be able to accommodate changes of direction by young people.
Many responses also argued for a range of approaches so that post-primary arrangements could reflect local needs and circumstances. Throughout the review I have consistently said that I want to build consensus about the new arrangements. Building consensus remains the best way in which to make progress, and the considerable consensus demonstrated by the responses to the consultation provides a sound platform from which to move the review forward.
I want now to turn to the transfer test. The consultation has clearly shown that there is overwhelming support for the abolition of the test, and that requires a positive response. There are those who fear that the Department will move too quickly; others fear that we will move too slowly. I am aware that many parents are anxious about the possible effects of change on their children. However, there will be no chaos in the education system, nor will children suffer as guinea pigs during transition to new arrangements. Change will be implemented in a considered, planned manner, which will lead to real improvement in our education system.
The current arrangements, including the transfer test, must remain in place until decisions are taken on the post-primary review. The existing system must be managed, and the education of children currently in schools must be protected while the Department plans new arrangements.
The review body suggested that ending the transfer test in 2002 would be the earliest date on which changes could be introduced, and that would be subject to the outcome of the consultation process that the Department has just completed. To ensure that schools, parents and pupils know where they stand, I can confirm that the transfer test will take place in November 2003. Those pupils who are currently in primary six will, therefore, sit the test next year, and they will transfer to post-primary education in September 2004 under the current arrangements.
Although the transfer test must be held next year for practical reasons, I make it clear to the Assembly and to the people that it has no place in the future of education here. I am firmly resolved that it shall be abolished. It is unfair and damaging to many pupils, and it has adversely affected too many young lives. The consultation has confirmed the overwhelming support for its abolition.
Throughout its history the 11-plus branded most of our children failures: the real failure was not the children but the 11-plus itself. That injustice must be brought to an end. I am, therefore, announcing today that the transfer test will be abolished. I am determined that this will happen as soon as is practical, and my proposals for the way forward will ensure that the 11-plus is consigned to history at the earliest possible date.
That brings me to the next stages of the review. It is important that everyone, including myself, takes time to consider the responses to the consultation process in detail. I want to hear the views of key stakeholders in education on the responses to the consultation, and, in the light of my decision on the transfer test, on how best to progress the post-primary review before I introduce my proposals on the next steps. Any new arrangements and their implementation must be shaped by the responses to the consultation and must build on emerging consensus.
The views of MLAs are important in the process. I have tabled a motion to enable the Assembly to take note of the publication of the consultation report: that motion will be debated here next Tuesday. I had intended to discuss the report with the Committee for Education on Thursday, but that will be rearranged as early as possible. I look forward to both discussions.
Our main education partners must be fully engaged in the process of developing and implementing proposals for new post-primary arrangements. That is crucial. I have, therefore, planned a series of meetings with key education interests to seek their views on the responses to the consultation process and on how best to take forward the next stages of the review. Those meetings will take place with the education and library boards, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools, the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education, Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta (the Council for Irish-Medium Education), the Governing Bodies Association of Voluntary Grammar Schools, the teachers’ unions, the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment, the Northern Catholic bishops, and the Transferor Representatives’ Council, representing the main Protestant churches.
The first meeting has been arranged for 5 November, and meetings will continue throughout November. In determining the way forward, I will carefully consider the views expressed by our education partners at those meetings, along with the views of the Assembly and the Committee for Education and the responses to the consultation.
I will announce my proposals for the next stages of the review in December this year.
11.00 am
My objective in advancing the post-primary review is to create an education system that raises standards for all pupils, is fair to all pupils, and provides a modern education system for the twenty-first century. The consultation provided three key messages: there is widespread demand for change, which cannot be ignored; there is an obligation on all of us to focus on the needs of the child as a learner, which must be paramount in considering future arrangements; and there is emerging consensus on key issues, which provides us with a platform on which to build new arrangements.
If we keep the focus on the needs of children as learners, we can build on emerging consensus to achieve the objective of creating a modern, fair education system that enables all young people to fulfil their potential, irrespective of their backgrounds or circumstances. That is a truly worthy objective, and I will work towards it with the help of our education partners, Assembly Members and the Committee for Education as we take the post-primary education review to the next stages.
The Chairperson of the Committee for Education (Mr Kennedy):
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important discussion on the publication of the responses to consultation. However, it is regrettable that the document was not made available until half an hour before the Assembly met. It is even more regrettable that the Minister’s statement was not made available to Members until 10.30 am. If the Minister wishes everyone to participate in the discussion, Members ought to have been given the opportunity to read those documents.
This is an opportunity to question the Minister, and the Committee for Education wishes to consider the report in detail. As the Minister said, he and his officials will meet the Committee to examine the outcome of the review.
Can the Minister confirm that the topic of discussion with key stakeholders will be the results of the consultation rather than proposals on the way forward? Does he intend to consult further on any proposals for the way forward? Will he make a commitment to bring any proposals to the Committee for consideration? Does he acknowledge that the Burns Report’s proposals are not acceptable as a way forward? When the Minister issued the household response form, he said —
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order. I realise that it is important that the Member asks those questions as Chairperson of the Committee for Education. However, the Member is asking his fifth question, and he must conclude his questions.
Mr Kennedy:
Thank you for that advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will endeavour to make as many questions as possible available to the Minister. It is crucial that he has an opportunity to answer them.
I refer to the results that were published in today’s report on responses to consultation, in particular to responses to the question of whether academic selection should be abolished. Will the Minister accept that the majority of parents, teachers and all those who were consulted rejected the abolition of academic selection?
Ms de Brún:
A LeasCheann Comhairle. On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is there any guidance on Members’ asking questions?
I recall the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel recently being stopped when taking much less than three and a half minutes.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
I do not normally take points of order during questions to a Minister, but this debate is obviously very important: that is not to imply that other debates are not. The normal procedure is that Chairpersons and Deputy Chairpersons are given slightly longer for questions than others. Mr Kennedy has had ample opportunity to put his question, and the Minister will now respond.
Mr Kennedy:
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You have taken the unusual step of accepting a point of order from a ministerial Colleague of the Minister —
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order. Mr Kennedy, if you put your point of order, I shall accept it now.
Mr Kennedy:
My point of order is that it is the normal courtesy of the House to a Chairperson. Given the time constraints that Members —
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order. I have given that response to Ms de Brún’s point of order, and we shall go ahead exactly as I said because of the time constraints. The Minister will respond.
Mr Kennedy:
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I implore you to allow the Chairperson of a Statutory Committee some opportunity —
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order.
Mr Kennedy:
—to ask relevant questions —
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order.
Mr Kennedy:
— not only on behalf of his Committee but also on behalf of the political party which he represents.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order. Given the time constraints to which the Member has referred, he will appreciate that this is time-wasting. I am aware that the Chairperson has put five questions, and it is important that the Minister be given the opportunity, which he has requested, to respond to them.
Mr M McGuinness:
I consider the next stage of this process very important indeed. At the beginning of the process many people — not officials in my Department — said to me that the house would come down on top of me like a tonne of bricks if I tried to deal with the 11-plus. We moved through a process of research conducted by two eminent professors. The review body chaired by Gerry Burns carried out an incredible amount of work, and the consultation process was of vital importance.
The most striking feature of that process was the willingness of all those involved in education, on all sides of the debate, to be positive and constructive on how we move forward. It is a mood that I should like to sustain through what I consider to be the next stage of the process.
Many MLAs will appreciate that it is better that we move forward in a spirit of co-operation because this is about children. It is about the future of all our children, not just my children or Danny Kennedy’s children, and we have a responsibility to manage the process as best we can.
In answer to Mr Kennedy’s question, I intend to move forward sensibly, building on the good mood in education to deal with the important challenges before us. I shall not go to the education partners in the course of my November deliberations with a fait accompli. I shall continue to build consensus; and there is a good spirit abroad to do so.
I have clearly signalled to the Assembly that I shall come forward with my proposals at the end of that process. I wish to do so in co-operation with everyone, including the Committee for Education, which will have an opportunity to discuss the report, and those issues can be dealt with in debate here. I shall also meet with the Committee. Regarding further consultation on alternatives, I must say that the review body and my Department have already undertaken two broad consultation exercises. It is now time to take the review forward, working closely with the education partners to develop proposals that will take account of all the views expressed.
The need for change has been firmly established, and the majority now wishes to see proposals for new post-primary arrangements. Indeed, the Committee for Education, in the finalisation of its report into the matter, accepted that change was essential. Many respondents acknowledged the achievements of the current system of academic selection but argued that it was not adequate or acceptable for the future. The predominant view that emerged from consultation was that academic selection at the age of 11 should end.
Mr Kennedy:
That is nonsense.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order.
Mr M McGuinness:
Some support was dependent on certain conditions being met. I want to outline who was in favour.
Mr Kennedy:
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Two exceptions have been made on points of order. If Members want to raise points of order, they must raise them after the questions to the Minister. Otherwise, the time will be eaten into.
Mr M McGuinness:
Members should listen carefully to what I have to say. Those in favour were the five education and library boards, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools, the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education, Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta, the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment, the five main teachers’ unions, the Catholic Heads Association, the Association of Head Teachers in Secondary Schools, two thirds of schools, the Northern Catholic bishops, the Transferor Representatives’ Council, the institutes of further and higher education that responded, the Confederation of British Industry, the SDLP, Sinn Féin, the Alliance Party, the Progressive Unionist Party, the Women’s Coalition, the Workers’ Party, thirty of those people who responded to the household response form, the majority of the voluntary and community interests that responded, the Human Rights Commission, the Children’s Law Centre, the Committee on the Administration of Justice, the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Council of Trade Unions, and the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance.
Opposition came from the Governing Bodies Association, the Secondary Heads Association, one third of schools, two thirds of those people who responded to the household response form, rural interest groups, the UUP, the DUP, four district councils, the Institute of Directors, and the majority of 16 training organisations.
It is clear from the way that I have laid the report before the Assembly that this was a multi-stranded approach. It is totally wrong of Members to select the statistics that suit them and to ignore the rest.
A Member:
Such hypocrisy.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order.
Mr Kennedy:
It was the Minister’s baby.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order.
Mr M McGuinness:
The Ulster Unionist Party is opposed to the proposal for common admissions criteria. However, the majority of responses to the household response form, and in the omnibus survey, supported the proposal. The Member is being selective in identifying the responses that suit his and his party’s agenda.
I am the Minister of Education. It is my responsibility to be fair and objective, to consider the responses from all strands of the consultation, and to determine what is in the best interests of all of Northern Ireland’s children.
Mr Kennedy:
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
I have ruled that points of order will be taken after the questions to the Minister. [Interruption]. Order. I am standing. I will not rule on that again.
The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Education (Mr S Wilson):
I do not think that I have seen the Minister squirm so much since he was asked on ‘Newsnight’ whether he was a member of the IRA.
Does the Minister not agree that he has retreated from the position that he said he intended to see through during the lifetime of this Assembly? The 11-plus is to stay for the rest of this Assembly’s lifetime, and for a further two years.
Does he agree that he has been given a slap in the face, or — to use his parlance — a punishment beating, by the people? The majority of households have said that they oppose the central proposition of the Burns Report, that academic selection should be ended. The majority of teachers have said that academic selection should stay. Despite the gloss that the Minister has put on the figures, he has been comprehensively told, by all but the education mafia, that the people of Northern Ireland want academic selection to remain. According to his Department’s survey, more people have said that they want academic selection to stay than have said that they want the 11-plus to be abolished.
As he has given a commitment to the first group, will he also give a commitment to the second group that, in response to what the people have said, academic selection will be retained? Will he assure the House that he will not continue to squirm and try to avoid the conclusion that the people of Northern Ireland have come to?
11.15 pm
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order.
Mr M McGuinness:
If you will permit me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will ignore some of the nonsense that has been offered this morning.
The Member raised two issues. I have given a clear commitment to abolish the test and will be working with our education partners to determine a way forward to enable that to happen as soon as possible. Abolishing the test without new arrangements for transfer would create chaos within the system and cause anxiety and concern among pupils, parents, teachers and schools. I am not prepared to do that.
Some people will say that I am moving too fast; others will say that I am moving too slowly. I want to move at the right pace that enables me to work with education partners and determine arrangements that will allow change to be implemented in a planned and orderly way.
In relation to academic selection, it is just not good enough for people to select results from one strand and ignore everyone else’s opinions. I have been very forthright about this. The reality is that a majority of respondents to the household response form — 64% — did not support the end of academic selection. Those responding to the household response form constituted 16% of the adult population. Analysis shows that they included disproportionate numbers of those with children currently or previously at a grammar school. [Interruption].
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is entitled to be heard.
Mr Hamilton:
So are the people.
Mr M McGuinness:
Analysis shows that they included disproportionate numbers of those with children currently or previously at a grammar schools and those from the more prosperous areas of the North. Although that is an important body of opinion that must be taken into account, it cannot be construed as representing the views of the entire public. I have said all along that the consultation was multi-stranded and that reliance should not be placed on any single strand.
The public's views were expressed in a variety of other ways through the responses of schools, representative organisations in the community and voluntary sectors, churches, political parties and education partners. I will be taking into account the public's views as expressed through all strands of consultation, together with the other responses, in determining the best way forward.
Some people in the House may choose to exercise themselves on all those issues, but I appeal again to everyone on all sides of the House to recognise that children must be the central focus of our attention here. This is not about party political point-scoring or one-upmanship; it is about moving forward to face up to the challenges posed by the results of the consultation and by the unhappiness in society about the current arrangements. It is about sitting together in a positive and constructive spirit. That spirit exists outside this House, throughout the wide breadth of opinion within education. If that is the view, if people agree with it and are not prepared to challenge it, there is a huge responsibility on Members to add to and enhance that mood by continuing in a spirit of co-operation.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
I urge Members and the Minister to be as brief as possible, as many Members wish to put questions to the Minister.
Mr Gallagher:
I welcome the Minister's comments on the transfer test. I am pleased that those comments recognise the SDLP's long-held view on the matter. The consultation report also contains strong support for many of the SDLP's other suggestions, such as the development of pupil profiles. The report shows a clear rejection of the collegiate system and a desire for it to be replaced by the development of co-operation among all secondary schools. We must build on the goodwill and the good work of educationalists, teachers and school governors.
Does the Minister accept that any society that is based on justice must have at its heart an education system that is based on "equality of opportunity"? However, that term does not appear in the consultation report. Will the Minister ensure that the next document on the review of post-primary education will not only contain the term "equality of opportunity" but will have the capacity to develop and deliver equality of opportunity for all our children?
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order.
TOP
Next >>
|
