PROCEEDINGS OF THE SUB-GROUP ON SCHOOLS ADMISSION POLICY
Minutes of the Meeting held on Monday 8 January 2007 and Friday 12 January 2007 in Room 135, Parliament Buildings.
In the Chair: Willie Clarke
Present: Dominic Bradley
Jeffrey Donaldson MP
Barry McElduff
David McNarry
Caitríona Ruane
Sammy Wilson MP
In attendance: Debbie Pritchard (Principal Clerk)
Stella McArdle (Clerk)
Valerie Artt (Assistant Clerk)
Jim Nulty (Clerical Officer)
Eleanor Murphy (Research and Library Services)
Observing Brian Crowe (UUP Researcher)
Richard Bullick (DUP Researcher)
Grainne McEvoy (SDLP Researcher)
Jackie McMullan (SF Researcher)
Philip Weir (DUP Researcher)
The meeting commenced at10.00 a.m. on Monday 8 January 2007 in closed session.
1. Minutes of the Meeting held on 22 December 2006
The minutes of the meeting on 22 December 2006 were agreed subject to the word ‘differences’ in the proposal by Mr Bradley in section four being amended to ‘difficulties’.
2. Matters Arising
Members noted that the Committee on the Programme for Government had agreed to the request by the sub-group to extend the reporting date to 17 January 2007.
The summary of written and oral evidence submitted to the sub-group on key issues was noted.
3. Party Position Papers
Party position papers on schools admission policy provided by the four parties of the sub-group were noted.
4. Consideration of Academic Selection
Members noted the following papers
- Advice on academic selection and the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement)Act 2006;
- Academic Selection - possible options and
- An over-view of post-primary transfer arrangements in other countries.
There was a detailed discussion on academic selection and members set out their party positions.
The DUP referred to the legal position and highlighted the problems that would arise if there was no agreement on academic selection as schools would be left to set their own selection criteria. The DUP also referred to the response to the household survey when the majority of those who responded was in favour of retaining academic selection. Parents could opt out of academic selection if they did not want their children to sit the tests and therefore there was parental choice in the present system. To make the system more voluntarily, schools could be allowed to set their own tests. This would allow for increased parental choice. If there was a suitable replacement, the DUP would agree to the end of the 11+.
Sinn Fein pointed out that many of the groups who responded to the sub-group’s request for submissions, were opposed to academic selection. The party was opposed to academic selection because it was socially divisive, not in the best interests of the child, contributed to the long tail of underachievement, distorted the primary school curriculum and lead to low self esteem in a number of children. Sinn Fein’s position was that the education system should be child centred and the child’s best interests should be at the centre of this. The party also noted that in many socially deprived areas only a small number of children passed the 11+.
The SDLP noted that while the majority of respondents to the household survey were in favour of academic selection, while wanting an end to the 11+, the results had been distorted by a huge amount of lobbying. The party wished to see parental choice informed by an improved pupil profile and urged CCEA to make the necessary changes to make the pupil profile more relevant. The party would also wish to see an end to the 11+, and all forms of academic selection, which have had a detrimental effect on the primary school curriculum over the years.
The UUP was of the view that, without academic selection, many secondary schools would struggle with falling numbers as parents tried to access a grammar school education for their child. The party indicated that it was in favour of schools having the option of academic selection in the event of over-subscription and noted that some secondary schools already stream children. The UUP would accept the removal of the 11+ if there were a suitable, realistic, workable alternative. The consequences of the changes as a result of the St Andrews Agreement Act 2006 made it vital that the Transitional Assembly considered the implications for post-primary schools admission.
Mr Donaldson left the meeting at 10.25 a.m.
Ms Ruane joined the meeting at 10.47 a.m.
The following proposals were made:
Mr McNarry proposed that ‘there should be a debate in the Assembly on post-primary transfer arrangements as a result of section 21 of the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006.’
There was not consensus and the proposal fell. DUP and UUP supported the proposal and Sinn Fein and SDLP objected.
Ms Ruane proposed that ‘there should be a debate on post-primary transfer arrangements.’
There was not consensus and the proposal fell. Sinn Fein and SDLP supported the proposal and DUP and UUP objected.
Mr McElduff proposed that ‘the sub-group is opposed to the 11+.’
There was not consensus and the proposal fell. Sinn Fein and SDLP supported the proposal and DUP and UUP objected.
Mr Wilson proposed that ‘the sub-group is opposed to the 11+ but wants to see a workable realistic replacement for it.’
There was consensus and the proposal was agreed. Sinn Fein and SDLP stated that they agreed to the proposal on the basis that it allowed for an open-ended debate on post-primary transfer arrangements and did not imply acceptance of academic selection.
The Chairperson proposed that ‘ as an immediate priority an incoming Executive should reach a decision on schools admission policy.’
There was consensus and the proposal was agreed.
Mr Wilson proposed that ‘ in the light of academic selection continuing to be part of the admissions policy, detailed consideration should be given to the safeguards which need to be put in place to ensure that the interests of the child are at the centre of the decision-making process.’
There was not consensus and the proposal fell. DUP and UUP supported the proposal and Sinn Fein and SDLP objected.
The meeting was suspended at 11.30 a.m.
The meeting recommenced at 11.48 a.m.
Mr Donaldson rejoined the meeting at 11.48 a.m.
5. Consideration of Issues
Members discussed the following key issues stating their party positions:
Definition of Proposed Criteria
The DUP stated that the definition of the criteria was not clear and that the criteria were too geographically based. The party was particularly unhappy with the statement that ‘schools serve local communities’ and also recognised that all parties were concerned about the distance criterion in respect of rural schools. DUP was also of a view that the definitions need to be clarified as they meant different things in different contexts and did not back up the aim of putting the interests of the child at the centre of the decision making process.
Sinn Fein stated that advice from primary school teachers should be non-directional and that random selection, not proximity, should be the tiebreaker. The party agreed that the geographical criteria should be clearly defined and that there should be special provision for Irish medium and integrated schools and for Irish travellers and children from ethnic minorities.
The SDLP was concerned that family focused criteria should make provision for single sex schools to prevent the exclusion of a son or daughter who is not the eldest member of their immediate family. Foster children and half –brothers and sisters should be included in this criterion and children in care required special consideration. Feeder primary schools were important in relation to defining the catchment area, avoiding a post-code lottery and assisting grammar schools to maintain their current catchment area. The party favoured random selection as a tie-breaker.
The UUP stated that a statement of advice from the post-primary school would assist informed choice by parents. The party would favour an open menu approach which would allow schools to respond to the needs of the local community and protect their ethos. The controlling principle should be that the child is matched with the school that best suits its needs.
Ms Ruane left the meeting at 11.55 a.m.
Mr Donaldson left the meeting at 12.05 p.m.
Mr Wilson proposed that ‘the admissions policy as outlined will not lead to a situation where the interests of the child are paramount and the criteria will only result in children being channelled to a local school regardless of whether it is best suited to their needs.’
There was not consensus and the proposal fell. DUP and UUP supported the proposal and Sinn Fein and SDLP objected.
Mr Donaldson rejoined the meeting at 12.08pm
The Chairperson proposed that ‘ the Department, as a matter of urgency, should conduct independent research and carry out exploratory modelling on the interaction between the proposed criteria. It should then consult widely on the criteria as soon as possible.’
There was consensus and the proposal was agreed.
Intervention powers to prevent the misuse of admission criteria
The DUP was content that the current arrangements for appeals should be transferred from the Education and Library Boards to the new Education and Skills Authority. .
Sinn Fein was content with the current arrangements subject to greater involvement of skilled professionals when appropriate.
The SDLP was of the view that the selection of feeder primary schools by post-primary schools should be open to scrutiny.
The UUP requested that the Department should be asked to give further information on how feeder primary schools would be designated and how lists created by post primary schools would be approved. The sub-group agreed that the Clerk should write to the Department asking for an urgent response regarding the role of the Department in relation to the selection of feeder primary schools under the proposed arrangements.
Mr Donaldson left the meeting at 12.17 p.m.
Mr McElduff proposed that ‘the current independent appeal system operates well and that following the establishment of the Education and Skills Authority, and the disbandment of the Education and Library Boards, this system should continue and involve, where appropriate, skilled professionals.’
There was consensus and the proposal was agreed.
The provision for sectoral schools
The DUP was of the view that any provision for Irish medium and integrated schools should also apply to grammar schools serving rural areas.
Sinn Fein noted the need for flexibility for the Irish medium and integrated schools and believed that the community based criteria would meet this need.
The SDLP favoured flexible arrangements for Irish medium and integrated schools as provision for transfer from a primary school to a post primary school is limited in these sectors. The party considered that ‘nearest suitable school’ as a criterion would provide this flexibility.
The UUP noted that in some areas, the introduction of new Irish medium and integrated schools plus falling roll numbers created difficulties for traditional schools.
Mr Donaldson rejoined the meeting at 12.30 p.m.
Mr Wilson proposed that ‘the provision for sectoral schools such as Irish medium and integrated schools should also apply to grammar schools serving rural areas.’
There was not consensus and the proposal fell. DUP, SDLP and UUP supported the proposal and Sinn Fein objected.
Mr Wilson left the meeting at 12.35 p.m.
Admission arrangements for special needs
The Department’s review of special needs provision was noted.
Mr McNarry proposed that ‘the sub-group welcomes the proposal on additional funding from the sub-group on Economic Issues and recommends that some of this funding should be allocated to special needs and that special needs education should be appropriately resourced.’
There was consensus and the proposal was agreed.
Miscellaneous
There was a general discussion on the various miscellaneous issues and a number of proposals were made.
Mr McNarry proposed that ‘in the new single Education and Skills Authority there should be provision for a representative parental voice forum including capacity building for parents and that the Department should update the sub-group on developments in this area as soon as possible.’
There was consensus and the proposal was agreed.
Mr Donaldson proposed that ‘the Department should examine what impact the admission criteria and pupil profile will have on Dickson area schools and to see what flexibility there would be for this and other local arrangements.’
There was consensus and the proposal was agreed.
Mr McNarry proposed that ‘the term ‘parental choice’ should be changed to ‘parental preference’ to reflect the reality which will pertain after the proposed changes’.
There was consensus and the proposal was agreed.
6. Any Other Business
Paper from Sub-group on Economic Issues
The paper from the sub-group on Economic Issues regarding a recommendation on additional funding for education was noted. Members agreed that the Clerk should inform the sub-group that a recommendation that some of this funding should be allocated to special needs would be included in their report.
Issues around Feeder Primary Schools
It was agreed that the Clerk would request further information from the Department of Education on issues around feeder primary schools.
Legal Advice on Academic Selection and the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006
It was agreed that further details of the legal position in relation to the implications of the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement ) Act 2006 would be provided for the next meeting.
Press Release
Members agreed a press release to be issued following the meeting.
The meeting was suspended at 12.58 p.m.
The meeting was reconvened in closed session at 2.33 p.m. on Friday 12 January 2007
In the Chair: Willie Clarke
Present: Dominic Bradley
Jeffrey Donaldson MP
Barry McElduff
David McNarry
In attendance: Debbie Pritchard (Principal Clerk)
Stella McArdle (Clerk)
Valerie Artt (Assistant Clerk)
Jim Nulty (Clerical Officer)
Eleanor Murphy (Research and Library Services)
Observing Brian Crowe (UUP Researcher)
Jackie McMullan (SF Researcher)
Philip Weir (DUP Researcher)
7. Apologies
Apologies were received from Catríona Ruane and Sammy Wilson MP.
8. Matters Arising
Paper from Sub-group on Economic Issues
Members noted the response from the Clerk to the sub-group on Economic issues.
Issues Around Feeder Primary Schools
The paper provided by the Department of Education on issues around feeder primary schools was noted. Members agreed that the Clerk should request further clarification from the Department on the proposed timetable on the provision of guidance to schools.
Response from CCEA regarding Legal Challenges to the Pupil Profile
It was agreed that the Clerk should request a response from CCEA regarding the possibility of a legal challenge to the proposed pupil profile as promised during the evidence session on 15 December 2006.
Legal Advice
Members noted legal advice on the implications of the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006.
Consideration of Schools Admission Policy
Mr Donaldson proposed that ‘the Department lays out clearly how the admissions criteria and pupil profile will be impacted on by the proposed changes in education policies such as: transport arrangements; collaborative arrangements; the entitlement framework; specialist schools and the Independent Strategic Review of Education and recent legislation, including that arising from the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006.’
There was consensus and the proposal was agreed.
Schools Admission Criteria
There was a short discussion on a shift in focus from transfer at age 11 to age 14 and the references which had been made to this by a number of groups which gave evidence to the subgroup.
Mr Donaldson proposed that ‘there has been substantial interest in the idea of transfer at age 14 and further research should be commissioned urgently on the experience of this system, including the Dickson Plan in Craigavon, and elsewhere in Europe. This should include an assessment of the resource implications of restructuring schools to accommodate such a system, including as an area based solution.’
There was consensus and the proposal was agreed.
9. Consideration of the Pupil Profile
Members discussed the following key issues and set out their party positions.
Pupil profile as a means of academic selection
The DUP stated that this option should be looked at immediately and that the academic selection element should be externally based to protect teachers. CATs would be one option as they would seem to answer objections to the 11+ in that they would not be high stakes nor open to tutoring and would tie in with the normal curriculum. The party supported academic selection but would wish to see research undertaken into a good alternative to the 11+.
Sinn Fein agreed with the concept of the pupil profile but stated that it must not be used for the purpose of academic selection but should be used as an aid to parents in deciding a pathway for their child.
The SDLP stated that the party was against the use of the pupil profile as a means of academic selection as it had been designed to be used to inform the parent and teacher about a child’s progress.
The UUP stated that there was insufficient information available in relation to its development, the feedback from teachers to the pilot schemes run by CCEA and the fall back position for children in the first years of its use if it did not live up to expectations. The pupil profile should be revised to record the academic ability of the child but further information was required on the options available to assess this.
Manageability for schools and teachers
The DUP stated that the evidence from teachers was that the pupil profile was not manageable for schools and teachers and that it took a considerable amount of time to complete. The party was concerned that some teachers were not capable of dealing with the IT component even if the computer hardware was available and that additional resources would be required for training and to allow teachers the extra time required to complete the profiles.
Sinn Fein stated that teachers had expressed concern that the profiles were not fit for purpose, that there were problems with presentation and that teachers were concerned about the awarding of scores and the amount of time it would take to complete the report.
The SDLP stated that the pupil profile was not at present a manageable tool and that it needed a considerable amount of honing to make it so. The party also stated that the hardware required to complete the profile was not available to schools and that teachers would require training on its use.
The UUP stated that more information was required on the results of the pilots on the profile but resources, training and a realistic timetable to facilitate its introduction must be provided. The party also stated that the results of the pilots must be made available to stakeholders and elected representatives as soon as possible.
Relevance for parents and pupils
The DUP stated that the pupil profiles would be totally subjective documents with little consistency between schools and that they would therefore be of little use.
Sinn Fein considered that the Report Card Template used in the Republic of Ireland, which recorded the child’s social and personal learning and provided guidance on next steps, should be examined in more detail.
The SDLP stated that it still needed to be assured that the pupil profile would be adequate to allow parents to make an informed choice. The provision of comment banks would be a helpful addition as these could provide a basis for comparability.
The UUP stated that there was no proven information on the pilot schemes and it was not possible to determine the relevance of the pupil profile to parents until the results of these pilots was made known.
The content
The DUP stated that it was concerned that the usefulness of the pupil profile would be undermined by the variation in interpretation of meaning between schools. The party had particular concerns about variation in the level of progressions in the literacy and numeracy sections of the profile.
Sinn Fein stated that the pupil profile needed to reflect the characteristics of immersion education. It also needed to take account that assessment of literacy and numeracy in Irish medium education was problematic.
The SDLP stated that CATs were a useful tool to track development of knowledge and the party was not aware of similar tests being used elsewhere as a high stakes selection tool. The party considered that there should be an opportunity for the child’s comments to be included in the profile.
The UUP noted the inclusion in the pupil profile of computer based diagnostic testing and had concerns about the development and application of these as there was no evidence provided to the sub-group that the use of this technology was proven.
Following further discussion on the content of the pupil profile, it was agreed that consideration of a proposal on this issue would be deferred until the next meeting.
Sharing the pupil profile with schools
The DUP stated that sharing of the profile with schools was essential but it needed to be more robust and objective than at present.
Sinn Fein stated that there should be a free and open approach with respect to sharing the profile but that it should be used to inform individual education plans for the child not for academic selection.
The SDLP stated that it was in favour of parents sharing the profile with schools if they wished but that it should not automatically go to schools as this could result in it being used for academic selection.
The UUP stated that it was in favour of schools automatically receiving a copy of the profile which could be used, in the event of over subscription, to enable the child to be placed in the post primary school best suited to its aptitudes, talents and abilities.
Cost and delivery of the ITC solution
Members discussed the ITC solution and agreed that they were concerned about the lack of information available on its cost and delivery.
Timetable for introduction
Members discussed the timetable for the introduction of the pupil profile and agreed that there were concerns around the proposed date.
The meeting was suspended at 3.40 p.m.
The meeting recommenced at 3.55 p.m.
The pupil profile as a means of academic selection
The following proposal was made:
Mr McNarry proposed that ‘the pupil profile should be revised in order to record the academic ability of the child on the basis of fair and consistent standards.’
There was not consensus and the proposal fell. DUP and UUP supported the proposal and Sinn Fein and SDLP objected.
Manageability for schools and teachers
Mr McNarry proposed that ‘the Programme for Government Committee agrees that, if time allows, the sub-group should visit a small number of schools involved in the pilots to ascertain the views of teachers and pupils.’
The proposal was agreed by consensus.
The Chairperson proposed that ‘ the final report from BDO Stoy Hayward on the independent evaluation of the pupil profile is made available to MLAs and interested groups without delay.’
The proposal was agreed by consensus.
The Chairperson proposed that ‘adequate resources are made available for schools and for the professional development of teachers to enable them to carry out the completion of the pupil profile.’
The proposal was agreed by consensus.
Relevance for parents and pupils
Mr Bradley proposed that ‘ the public is kept informed about the progress of the pupil profile through a wide range of media.’
The proposal was agreed by consensus.
The chairperson proposed that ‘consideration needs to be given as to how the pupil profile will be made accessible and easily understood by all parents.’
The proposal was agreed by consensus
The content
Mr McElduff proposed that ‘the development of the pupil profile needs to reflect the characteristics of immersion education, including taking into account problems in assessing literacy and numeracy in Irish medium education.’
There was not consensus and the proposal fell Sinn Fein and SDLP supported the proposal and DUP and UUP objected.
Sharing the pupil profile with schools
The chairperson proposed that ‘the receiving post primary school should automatically get a copy of the pupil profile, to inform individual education plans for the child.’
The proposal was agreed by consensus.
Cost and delivery of the ITC solution
The chairperson proposed that ‘the Department should make available information about the cost and delivery of the ITC solution proposed for the pupil profile.’
The proposal was agreed by consensus.
The timetable
The chairperson proposed that ‘members are not content with the proposed timetable for the introduction of the pupil profile.’
The proposal was agreed by consensus
There was a discussion on a proposal on research on forms of academic selection and it was agreed that the DUP would bring a proposal to the next meeting for the consideration of the sub-group.
10. Any Other Business
Press Release
Members agreed a press release to be issued following the meeting.
11. Date, Time and Place of Next Meeting
The next meeting to discuss and agree the sub-group’s report to the Committee on the Programme for Government will be held on Tuesday 16 January 2007 at 12.30 p.m. in Room 135, Parliament Buildings, Stormont.
The meeting was adjourned at 4.25 p.m.
Willie Clarke
Chairperson
16 January 2007