« NEWS: “Open Executive” session in SU as sabbs give some answers | New edition available now »
NEWS: Political parties discuss 11+ in QUB’s Great Hall as Basil McCrea deems the situation to be a “sham”
“An ill-qualified, confusing, ultimately detrimental sham.”
This was the UUP Educational Spokesperson Basil McCrea’s summation of the post-transfer test situation in Northern Ireland. On Thursday 12th November, he, along with representatives of the other main political parties took part in a debate on the abolition of the transfer test, chaired by the BBC’s Jim Fitzpatrick in QUB’s Great Hall. Taking part also were Sinn Fein Education Spokesperson John O’Dowd, SDLP Education Spokesperson Dominic Bradley MLA, Alliance leader David Ford MLA and Mervyn Storey, DUP MLA and chairman of the Assembly’s Education Committee.
BY HEATHER MCGARRIGLE
The audience, which included parents of children approaching transfer age, were concerned about the lack of cohesion in the current system, which sees the transfer test, or eleven-plus, being replaced by two unregulated tests, which most grammar schools have now listed in their entry criteria. The first question from the audience referred to parents and children being left in ‘limbo’ and asked what the parties planned to do about the situation.
John O’Dowd defended the Minister of Education’s policy, describing it as ‘crystal clear’ and pointing out that three parties at the table, Sinn Fein, the SDLP and the Alliance Party, were opposed to academic selection. He described the eleven plus/transfer test system as having been ‘socially unjust, educationally unjust and educationally unsound’. Mervyn Storey accused Sinn Fein of a ‘class war against middle class Catholics and Protestants’.
What was clear throughout the whole debate was that, while the SDLP and Alliance are indeed opposed to academic selection as it stood, each of the four parties have grave concerns about the way in which the minister has managed the scrapping of the test and do not believe that adequate structures have been put in place to create a fair transfer process.
Dominic Bradley said that until such structural changes are put in place, it would be very difficult for grammar schools to make the change from selective to non-selective entry. He illustrated his point by referring to the de-selective educational system in Finland. The country began a process of educational reform in 1963 and, by introducing new curriculums and structural reforms in stages throughout the 1970s and 80s, continued the process until the late 1990s. He said: “The Finnish system had the agreement of everyone; we’re trying to do this in one year without the agreement of everyone.”
David Ford echoed these sentiments, saying that compromise is needed to reach a solution that suits everybody. The issue of whether or not to defer the transfer age to 14 as opposed to 11 as a possible solution was raised. Sinn Fein favour a system whereby pupils make educational key decisions at the age of 14 and the Alliance agree with the idea of electing at age 14 as opposed to being selected at 11. However, the Alliance leader went on to say that in order to reach the compromise clearly needed between all of the parties, as well as education leaders, his party would be in favour of a CCEA-approved test in the interim.
When asked whether removing selection left children subject to a ‘postcode lottery’, David Ford made the point that primary education could therefore be described as a postcode lottery, given that most children simply go to their local primary school. He also referred to the ‘elitism’ which led to grammar schools being seen as better than high schools, a sentiment echoed later by John O’Dowd. This led to a discussion of the transfer test’s original purpose as a tool of social mobility, helping socially disadvantaged children into better education. Dominic Bradley put it that we have a postcode lottery now, with those attending grammar schools tending to come from ‘affluent, middle class areas’ and that the transfer test had begun to work against those it was originally intended to serve. Basil McCrea said it was crucial to ‘match the type of school to the type of child’ and added that his party did not support the transfer test, but did support the use of academic criteria in the transfer process.
A parent in the audience raised concerns that her 10-year-old, academically gifted daughter, under a postcode-based system, would be forced to go to the local high school which only offered one modern language and did not offer triple award science at GCSE level. Funding was an issue here, according to John O’Dowd, who said that this high school obviously sees itself as ‘lesser’ than the grammars and said that the system as a whole needed reform so that schools like this would provide fully for the needs of local children. “What we’re saying to the grammar schools is to open your doors to all the children and stop telling children at the age of 11 that they are failures.”
When Mervyn Storey spoke, he accused Sinn Fein of waging ‘a class war against middle class Catholics and Protestants’. He accused the minister of being incapable and quoted a Department of Education survey, saying that 62% of parents were in favour of retaining academic selection. He also raised the issue of underachievement in schools as something which needed to be given equal attention in the debate, with one in four children apparently reaching transfer age without attaining basic levels of reading and numeracy.
Those in favour of the abolition of the transfer test see it as an unfair system which classes many 11-year-old children as failures and, given the additional tutoring available to children from affluent families, has lost its power as a tool of social mobility. Those opposed to scrapping academic selection feel that academic assessment needs to take place, in order to match the child to the school best suited to serve their educational needs.
Judging from this debate, nobody outside of Sinn Fein seems clear on exactly what the new policy on post-primary transfer is meant to be, or how it is designed to better serve the country’s children. The panel discussion was lively and interesting – let’s hope more debate of this kind will continue at Stormont between all the parties so that children and their parents aren’t left in ‘limbo’ any longer.
Tags: 11+, Gown, Heather McGarrigle, newspaper, Politicall Activism Week, qub, Queen's, queen's university, student, The Gown
This entry was posted on Sunday, November 15th, 2009 at 12:35 am and is filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
I think Barry Duffy VP Education is academically gifted.
Anti-Transfer - There are people who are academically gifted. How can you say that there aren't?!
There are academically minded people, and then there are people who are more averse to manual/physical/creative things, and then there are academically gifted people.
Take the idea of "gifted" children for instance. There are children (a few of my little cousins so I have first hand experience) who speak very early with complex vocabulary and sentence structures, and then go to school and stand out starkly amongst all the other children due to their remarkable ability.
I think money plays a huge part in the 11+ as well. Well-off people can buy their way into schools based on paying for outside tuition.
Grammar and Secondary schools in NI offer EXACTLY THE SAME education. This is no academic or vocational shift as you say.
Once again, I don't think that people are 'academically gifted'.
Janet, obviously one-child families would be taken into consideration. You may remember, if you were paying attention, that I think selection should be based on "a variety of factors"- the list was non-exhaustive.
Question for Anti-Transfer - Why should pupils get chosen for a school due to having siblings at it?
That may be handy for the parents, but it is discriminatory for pupils who maybe aren't picked because they don't have siblings.
Flawed.
By gifted, I meant "academically gifted." The fact of the matter is that some children ARE more academically gifted than others - that's life. It doesn't mean that children who are less academic are in any way stupid or failures. If that is the perception, then i think that would be the more appropriate issue for Caitriona Ruane to tackle.
Some suggest that it is impossible to make this distinction at age 11, and this is a point I take on board, but I wonder if it would really be any easier a task at 14?
There seems to be a perception that all the children who are at secondary schools want to go to grammar schools. This is simply not true! I can tell you from personal experience of working with primary school kids that many of them say they would prefer to go somewhere where there is likely to be a greater range of subjects, with some which are perhaps more vocational in nature, to cater to their interests and abilities. It amuses me that there is this notion that every child at a secondary school is sitting in a crumbling down building saying "oh, i wish i could have gone to grammar school, but i'm too poor! Or i'm too stupid! And now i'll never get to university!"
The kind of streaming system that you mention in your final paragraph sounds similar to what exists in England at the moment - and it's not working out too well there. Parents are doing everything in their power to move into the areas closest to the best schools (which are inevitably the most expensive areas) or even sending their kids to private schools.
In this way, i think "selection" will always exist in some form, whether it's imposed by the government or by parents. But that selection can be based on one of two things. Either the results of an exam (which was the case with the 11 plus system) or how much money your parents have (which, when you face facts, is essentially what happens in England). Both are imperfect, but i know which one i'd prefer.
I don't see anything wrong with a dual system of grammar and secondary schools - provided that both offer high quality education. Equal, if slightly differing. in emphasis.
Feel free to disagree though! :)
Niamh, I disagree!
While the new 'limbo' system ridiculously confusing, I feel that academic selection is not the answer.
I take particular issue with your phrase "gifted children"- I think it is very unhelpful and rather eltitist to refer to children as being gifted or ungifted.
The only reason in my view why Grammar schools are thought of as 'better' is because they get all the pupils who, at that stage in their lives, show a certain standard of reading and writing ability. The teachers there have an easy ride:
Grammar school teachers don't have to deal with the children who are lagging behind; the ones who feel neglected by he education system for being labelled 'failures'; the ones being treated as stupid.
I went to a grammar school, but I feel the best option is to teach everyone together in a streaming system. Children should be selected for schools based on a variety of factors, including preference, continuous assessment, character, siblings at the school, etc.
Interesting article, I would have loved to go to the event itself.
Personally, I think all of the arguments in favour of scrapping the 11 Plus are pretty easily rebuttable, especially when you consider that Caitriona Ruane's fabulous solution has been to leave thousands of children, their parents and their teachers in limbo this year. The 11 Plus was of course an imperfect system, but surely it was preferable to what we've been left with.
Any arguments that the 11 Plus was inherently elitist is ridiculous in my view. Surely now that there are entrance exams (which primary school teachers are not allowed to officially prepare pupils for), more parents will be seeking out coaches for their children. How that is supposed to be more favourable to low-income familes remains a mystery to me.
Caitriona Ruane complains at length about the disparity between grammar and secondary schools. Personally i think this is slightly insulting to all of the excellent secondary schools in N. Ireland. But if some of them are failing, why doesn't she just focus her efforts on improving them?
Having a comprehensive school system will just breed mediocrity. One teacher cannot be expected to give every student the attention they deserve if he/she is dealing with students at a whole variety of different levels. The focus will understandably be on getting the pass rate up, and the particularly gifted children will be left to practically teach themselves!
For this reason, you can bet that as soon as children enter a school, they'll be streamed anyway, so children will still have a perception of where they sit on the academic scale. The only difference is that they will all be in the same building now. And doesn't this stand to increase bullying etc? Some children will be taunted for being "too stupid" and others for being "too smart."
Well done, Caitriona - really. This seems like such a flawless plan!
Loading ...
Kind of agree with Anti Transfer here. The 11 plus is ridiculous. because of the way it worked middle class parents just had their children tutored through to get them into a grammar school that got lots of state funding.
I went to a comprehensive and then answer to the issues Niamh mentioned is streaming. You don't need to have classes as a total mix of people, you can have maths classes for those who can barely count and classes for those who can do quadratics in their heads.
Academically gifted is a horrible phrase. For one thing, all the research shows that there are only a small number of "exceptional" children who learn of their own accord. Generally it is just middle class parents teaching their children more and this having a positive effect on their school work.
I totally disagree with the new thing that Catriona RuinEverything has introduced. It's unclear and really does favour those with more money. But just because she made a mess doesn't mean returning to the 11 Plus is the answer.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like