Grammar School Entrance Tests
Private Members’ Business
Northern Ireland Assembly debates, 5 October 2009, 12:30 pm
David McClarty (UUP)
The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes. One amendment has been selected and published on the Marshalled List. The proposer of the amendment will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech.
Basil McCrea (UUP)
I beg to move
That this Assembly requests that the Minister of Education establishes a statutory framework for the grammar school entrance tests, effective from the beginning of the academic year 2010-11; and recommends that this statutory framework should remain in place until the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment devises, pilots and introduces literacy and numeracy tests compatible with the curriculum, alongside a robust pupil profile, allowing academic criteria to have a role in the post-primary transfer process.
Undoubtedly, some Members will be reflecting on the fact that today’s debate is the fifth on the subject. Given all the excitement outside at the Prime Minister’s arrival for discussions on policing and justice and the speculation on how the deputy First Minister and First Minister are getting on and on how the issues can be resolved and whether there will be an election, Members may wonder whether the debate is relevant. However, in my opinion, this is the issue that the people of Northern Ireland are talking about. When we go out and meet people in our constituencies, they say that this is the issue that they are concerned about.
It is no surprise that the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ has launched a petition that urges all of us to come together and find a solution because, put simply, the situation at which we have arrived is the worst of all possible worlds. It satisfies no one, it puts huge stress on children and it takes an awful lot of time away from teachers and headmasters, who, others will argue, could be doing something else. In addressing this issue, one could consider having a rant and a rave. I have been known to do such things in the past. However, we are now at the stage at which we need considered reflection about what we can do to find a way forward for our children and the people of Northern Ireland.
I want to highlight the fact that we agree on many issues. Although I am happy for people to take issue with what I say, we share the common objectives of trying to tackle educational underachievement. We want to increase social mobility, and we want people who are from not-so-favourable backgrounds to be better educated, get better jobs and be better paid. Let us lift everybody up. We want to eradicate poverty, which is one of the key issues facing this Administration. Education is the only enduring competitive advantage. We want to prepare our young people for their futures and for an economy that is, of course, uncertain. The only certainty that we can give them is the basis on which to compete.
We also have a common understanding of how we could address those issues and of what it takes to make that a reality. There is consensus on the basis of early intervention, even in the pre-primary sector. There is consensus in the House on the importance of primary school education and the critical role of good teaching. We have some of the best teachers in the world; we certainly have excellent teacher training colleges. We agree about the huge impact of head teachers as the overarching people who are responsible for improving standards and giving our young people the future that they deserve. I do not think that anybody here will disagree about the importance of parental support. What a difference that makes to children in making their way through life.
In addition, we agree on the need for change. If there is one certainty in this world, it is that change will happen. We also agree on academic excellence. We want our young people to do as well as possible. We support extended schools. All of us agree on the importance of the STEM subjects. We recognise the importance of language skills and the benefits of learning communities.
Members will highlight different issues. On the diversity of provision, there are people in this House who will argue for the Irish-medium sector. There are those who will argue for the integrated sector. Others will argue for faith-based schools, and there are also people who will argue for some form of academies. That shows that one size does not fit all. It is most important that we find a way of giving our young people the best start in life. Of course, that will require some form of area-based planning, whereby we try to accommodate all of those issues.
We recognise all of that. We are together, and we agree that we should try to find a way forward. At the risk of agreeing all day, we even agree on where the challenges lie. We agree that there is a challenge in respect of empty desks. We agree that falling rolls will put severe pressure on the financing of some of our schools. We understand the difficulties of maintaining and funding small rural schools, which make up a significant proportion of our school estate.
We acknowledge the strain on our head teachers, which is due to excessive bureaucracy, red tape and overheads and which detracts from their ability to do the job that they want to do. We agree about the iniquity of funding delays that lead to schools not being built on time, and we know about the financing challenges. I guess that we even agree about maximising autonomy where possible at school level, if that is a school’s wish.
So where does the problem lie? If we agree on all those issues, why is it not possible to get together and resolve them? The Ulster Unionist Party has identified four issues, which it puts on the table in the hope that the House will consider them and resolve to address them. There is a difference of opinion about cause and effect. In the past, the Minister has argued that the 11-plus, transfer test or whatever terminology one wishes to use causes social inequalities and that it is iniquitous and unfair. There are other arguments, not least of which is that the tests do not create inequalities, rather, they reflect inequalities.
I notice the growing warmth in the relationship between the Member’s party and the Tory Party. Consequently, does the Member agree with the Tory skills spokesperson, David Willetts, who said:
“academic selection entrenches advantage, it does not spread it”?
Basil McCrea (UUP)
I am grateful to Mr Bradley for bringing that matter up. In fact, I rather hoped to engender some warmth between the UUP and the SDLP, because these are devolved matters that we must discuss and find a solution to.
Basil McCrea (UUP)
Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker, I only have a certain amount of time — 10 minutes — so I cannot deal with barracking. If Members want a solution, instead of making cheap party-political points, they should consider the reality of the situation that faces our children and their role in tackling it.
Some people are not being represented. Parents who want to send their children to particular schools are not finding support in this House. The Minister says that my party is resisting change, but nothing could be further from the truth. We know that change is essential; we embrace and welcome it, and we want to see it. I want to tell the Minister that we are all free to change our minds and choose a different future; some of us may even want to choose a different past. I look to the Minister to see whether she is prepared to engage in finding a solution to this problem, because, if she is, she will find that the people of Northern Ireland will welcome it with open arms.
I hear people speak about an equality issue. Everybody wants equality, which is a word like “justice”. Everybody wants justice. Equality is a meaningless term unless it is further defined. Equality for whom? Equality in what? What is it that those people want to achieve? We are seeking equity. At the end of the day, the UUP’s fundamental position is that parental choice is the bedrock of all democracy. We do not like the iniquity of our children having to do five separate tests. Those who wanted to get rid of the 11-plus seem to have ended up with two tests. That cannot be the way forward. Those who want to keep the existing system need to ensure that it is regulated —
Trevor Lunn (Alliance)
I beg to move the following amendment: Leave out all after “Education” and insert
“instructs the Council for Curriculum Examinations and Assessment to complete, pilot and introduce a literacy and numeracy test based on the revised curriculum to be available to all schools in time for the 2010-2011 academic year, to be used alongside pupil profiles as one of the criteria for post-primary transfer, for one year only pending an agreed solution following inter-party talks.”
I listened with interest to the proposer of the motion speak to the motion for about the last 60 seconds of his speech; the rest seemed to be a wide-ranging review of the education system in Northern Ireland. Unusually, I find that I agree with much of what he said. I agree that it is the fifth time that we have discussed this matter, and that this remains the main issue that we face on the doorstep, if we perhaps leave aside the economy. The most important issue is not policing and justice. This is much more important to parents.
The Member spoke about social mobility, and I agree with the various points that he raised. However, the motion is not about that: it is about trying to legitimise the breakaway actions of the AQE and the grammar schools. If I were involved in that movement, I would be glad to see legal cover created by the Department of Education to protect me and my actions. However, I am not involved in that, and as the AQE has sown so shall it reap. I can well imagine the Minister’s response to that request.
The motion also seeks to extend indefinitely the system of academic selection. People can dress it up whatever way they like, but the motion calls for the present grammar school tests to be legitimised and extended for another year, while the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment comes up with an ongoing test. The Alliance Party proposed that on the fourth occasion on which this matter was debated, in March. We proposed that such a situation should be allowed to exist for two years, to give a chance for the various parties and interests involved to hold further concentrated talks to try to do something about the mess that we find ourselves in. That suggestion was not taken up by the Minister or her party. For various reasons, it was taken up by other parties represented in the Chamber but not because they supported the Alliance Party’s thinking on the issue.
The Assembly has been down this road so many times that the outcome of today’s debate is entirely predictable. The Ulster Unionist Party’s motion will probably be agreed to because it has the support of the two main unionist parties. The Alliance Party’s amendment, which merely seeks to reinforce what it put forward in March, will certainly fail. Neither of those decisions will be in any way binding on the Department or the Minister. I am sure that the Minister will not change her position, and I do not see why she should in the present circumstances. By way of response, we will probably hear from the Minister of Education a speech very similar to that which she gave during the last couple of debates on this subject. The Minister shares the characteristic of Mrs Thatcher in that she is “not for turning”. I do not expect her to turn now.
(Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker [Mr Dallat] in the Chair)
The way forward on this subject is not through private Members’ motions. I hesitate to call them irrelevant, but that is really what they are. They will change nothing. Last week and the week before, the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ has drummed up support for its “Sort it Out” campaign. The Alliance Party has called for all-party talks, and Mr McCrea also supported that idea. Every party represented in the Chamber has expressed an interest in all-party talks. I do not mean that the Education Committee should set aside time to talk about this. The Committee does not have time to spend on this. However, individual spokespersons, in a different forum, with support from senior party figures, could make time and try to do something about this. It is the only way forward.
Sinn Féin is not keen on participating in such talks. However, I plead with that party, if not the Minister or Department, to participate. I do not see what harm it would do to its cause by coming to the table and putting its case along with the other parties. I encourage Sinn Féin to think again about that.
We often hear about the needs of the children. Mr McCrea referred to that eloquently today, and this is all about the needs of the children. As usual, the children are being left aside in this debate. This year’s P7s are going through a process that is disgraceful. The impasse should never have got to this point.
One point of view is to blame the Minister’s intransigence; another is to blame the actions of the AQE and the grammar schools. We can blame whomever we want, but we have a situation in which kids of a tender age are being put through the process, and that is simply not right.
Children in P7 are being asked to sit variable tests in varying venues that are strange to them, probably on Saturdays. There is a question of whether their families can afford for them to be coached or prepared for those tests. Clearly, families with money will be able to afford such coaching; those without money will not. I fail to see where the equality is in that. The situation is putting enormous pressure on primary-school teachers and, in particular, head teachers, who are under pressure from the Department not to permit coaching and from parents to do exactly the opposite. I expect that most of them will serve the needs of the pupils, and, from their point of view, I cannot blame them. When Members say that it is “all about the children”, it has a hollow ring, because this is the fifth time in a couple of years that we are debating the issue, and we are no further forward.
Various bodies speak against academic selection; certainly, the Alliance Party is in that section of society, as are most of the teaching unions, the Churches, and academic professionals. I cannot identify many bodies or, numerically, many people who still want to cling to an outdated system.
I want to read from a resolution passed by the Belfast Synod of the Methodist Church in Ireland, which I expect that the spokesperson has received in the past few days. It states:
“It is the opinion of the Synod that the current impasse regarding the method of transfer from primary to secondary schools is a national disgrace. The Synod also is of a clear mind that the division and labelling of children as academic and non-academic at the age of 11 is erroneous, outmoded and self-defeating. It is the view of the Synod that much excellent research carried out through the years, not least in Craigavon.”
The Dickson plan that operates there is the example to work on. When the Committee for Education visited Craigavon and the Dickson plan was explained to it, it found favour with, I think, every party, not necessarily to simply accept it as is, but as a terrific model to work forward. However, it has been ignored.
The resolution continues that the:
“Synod remains deeply concerned that the present system of transfer has resulted in an appalling poverty of aspiration among many sections of our community, with the consequential waste of latent skills and talents, these remaining untapped.”
The word “synod” could be replaced with unions, teaching professionals, various political parties, and, I believe, no matter what the polls say, the majority of parents.
Here we are again on the merry-go-round. I am glad that Mr Basil McCrea gave us a reasoned explanation of his party’s thinking, rather than a rant. However, nothing has changed. The Ulster Unionist Party wants to reinstate and extend academic selection; society and the world have moved on. For that reason, I propose the amendment, with no expectation that it will be accepted. We will be opposing the motion.
Mervyn Storey (DUP)
Following on from the comments of Mr Lunn, who is a member of the Committee, I assure him and the House that the Committee for Education took time to consider this particular issue. I want to place on the record, as the Committee’s Chairperson, the consideration that the Committee gave to what it saw as a very important issue and, of course, to the concerns that were raised with it about an unregulated system.
On 20 February this year, the Committee for Education agreed that I, as Chairperson of the Committee, should write to the Minister to request that she reconsider the use of the CCEA-commissioned test as an interim compromise arrangement, with no conditions attached. The Committee’s letter, which is on the Assembly website, highlighted that there were concerns across the board that an unregulated system of transfer was not the preferred option. At that time, the Schools Transfer Option for Pupils (STOP) group of primary 6 parents petitioned the Committee and the Minister to the effect that an unregulated system of transfer was the least desirable outcome for children, parents and schools, and that the only immediate solution was for the Minister of Education to reinstate an interim CCEA exam to be adopted by all schools that proposed to introduce their own exam.
At the time, the Committee also highlighted to the Minister that the Northern Ireland Commission for Catholic Education, the Catholic Heads Association and the Governing Bodies Association had recently made it clear that they were concerned by an unregulated system of transfer, and stated that some interim solution using the test commissioned from CCEA was necessary to allow time to develop a properly regulated transfer system. The Minister came to a Committee meeting on 10 March 2009, however, and, shortly after her arrival, said:
“There will not be a CCEA test.”
I recall the Minister using similar words on 24 March 2009, when responding to an Alliance motion, which has been referred to. She said:
“The train has left the station. Transfer 2010 is departmental policy.” [Official Report, Vol 39, No 5, p253, col 2].
To end my comments as Chairperson of the Committee for Education, it is right to inform the House that the Education Committee received a delegation from all five teachers’ unions at a meeting on 17 June at which they expressed their grave concerns in relation to transfer 2010 arrangements and called for agreement on the transfer process.
I will use the time that I have remaining to speak as a private Member, and I will be as brief as I can, given the time that has been allotted to me.
We require a lot longer to deal with this issue. I agree with what Basil McCrea said: the most important issue facing Northern Ireland is not the devolution of policing and justice; it is the need to maintain and protect an educational system for the future of which all of us can be proud.
We have a Minister who has consistently refused to change. I could almost write her speech. She will talk about how many times the DUP has refused to discuss the issue at Executive meetings, and she will go over the same rhetoric as she always does. I remind Members that almost 13,000 parents in this country have decided that, for the best interests of their child, he or she will go to a school that sets an entrance test. They have made that choice because there are parents, professionals and educationalists in society who believe in the merit of having academic assessment.
I will be fair and honest and admit that there are also people — even those whom I have met over time — who say that there is no justification for having academic criteria for selection purposes. However, the reality is that Sinn Féin’s Martin McGuinness, the Assembly’s first Education Minister, and Caitríona Ruane, the second, have refused to listen to what people are saying.
Mervyn Storey (DUP)
That is the reality. It is unfortunate that Members have only five minutes in which to speak on an issue that is of such importance.
Mervyn Storey (DUP)
I assure the Minister that if she thinks that this issue is over and done with, she has another thing coming.
Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin)
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. As the proposer of the motion said, this is the fifth time that the House has debated academic selection. I am not sure how many of those five debates have been proposed by the Ulster Unionist Party in an attempt to hold on to a system that has failed so many children in the past. That system protects a select number of children, and to hell with the rest.
Mervyn Storey (DUP)
Members from the opposition have repeatedly referred to the issue of failure and the fact that that failure is proven. Indeed, the Minister has made the same point in her official statements. However, there is no empirical evidence that clearly demonstrates a link between transfer and underachievement. Where is the evidence?
Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin)
I thank the Member for his intervention, but I remind him that Sinn Féin is not the opposition; it is part of a coalition Government.
Sinn Féin is committed to ensuring that no child will be disadvantaged and that no child will be left behind while others are nurtured to achieve. It wants to ensure that every child in the education system receives all the support that he or she needs to achieve his or her best. It appears from the UUP’s contribution that that party is totally ignoring society’s position on academic selection. The mentality and sentiment behind its motion appears to be one of burying its head in the sand.
I recently met with a number of primary-school principals, and the mood among primary-school principals and teachers is one of wanting to get on with the new system. They support the direction of travel that the Minister has presented in transfer 2010. Furthermore, they want to get on with teaching the curriculum, so that all children will be prepared to enter the next level of education, having been taught right to the end of primary 7, without the interference of having to teach according to the requirements of a test. Primary schools are happy to be divorced from the selection process, and it is time for the Ulster Unionist Party to wake up and realise that.
The motion refers to the establishment of a statutory framework, and its proposer discussed the various areas on which we have agreement. I remind him that the Minister agreed to commission a test for three years, on a phasing-out basis, as a compromise way forward. However, despite numerous engagements throughout the education sector and the tabling of those proposals at the Executive, the parties refused to discuss them. That left a need for decisive action, and decisive action was taken.
The fact that the Minister envisaged, quite rightly, a temporary testing period and then withdrew that suggestion gave rise to a non-regulated system, which has caused great anxiety to many parents. Does the Member agree that the Minister made a mistake in doing that and that she should have persevered with that approach to get through the transition period?
Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin)
I thank the Member for his intervention, but I do not agree with him. When the Minister put that compromise proposal — it was a clear compromise — on the table, she gave it a definitive end date. It was a three-year period in which to phase out testing. That proposal would have allowed people time to adjust, but there was no agreement on it.
Everyone would prefer a regulated system, but, as there was no agreement on the compromise proposals, we had to move forward, and the Minister had to publish her transfer 2010 guidance, which, if followed by all schools, will create a more effective and fair system of post-primary transfer. When that guidance is coupled with the other changes in education, such as area-based planning and the entitlement framework, the future looks bright for all children in the education system. In its tenure in the Department of Education, Sinn Féin will ensure that no child is disadvantaged.
The Alliance Party’s amendment calls for the introduction of a test for one year. I listened very carefully to the proposer of that amendment, and it is a genuine attempt at a constructive way forward. However, it ignores the political reality that, to date, there has been no agreement between the parties and that they are entrenched in their positions.
Mervyn Storey said that he could predict what the Minister would say at the conclusion of today’s debate and that what she would say would be all rhetoric. However, there is rhetoric across the board, because all Members will say the same things that we have heard so many times before.
Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin)
No. I am just about to finish.
The Alliance Party’s amendment says that a CCEA test will allow for a solution following inter-party talks. However, that has been tried and tested and has failed. Numerous attempts have been made to move forward and seek agreement with Executive colleagues, but they are unwilling to look at that. We need an education system that is fit for purpose and fit for the twenty-first century, based on meeting the needs of all children in a fair, open and transparent manner. The vast majority of schools support the Minister’s position. Sinn Féin will not be deterred in what it has to do and it will be opposing the motion and the amendment.
Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. It is well known that the SDLP sees academic selection as educationally unsound and socially unacceptable. However, we realise that movement from one system to another cannot be done overnight and requires a planned and structured transition so that parents, teachers, pupils and schools know the various steps involved.
Mervyn Storey (DUP)
Will the Member clarify something that has been confusing me for a long time? I am not hard to confuse, but how does the Member marry what he has already said with the grammar schools in his constituency in the city of Newry, which he knows well? Has he now bought into the vision of the bishops, which is to bring those schools under their control if they get their way with the ESA Bill? We will come to that debate very soon. Where does the Member stand in relation to those schools that have a very defined grammar ethos? Has he dumped them because it is politically convenient to do so?
Of course I value the contribution to education made by all the schools in my constituency, both selective and non-selective. However, many selective schools now realise that their position is untenable in the future and are beginning to make arrangements to admit a wider range of ability. That will happen not overnight but gradually, and I welcome that very much.
As I was saying before Mr Storey intervened, the non-binding guidelines from the Minister have created difficulties for both primary and post-primary schools. Already, I see evidence that accommodation addresses are being used to help pupils to get into some non-selective schools rather than others. That situation will only get worse, and it will add to the pressure on schools that have to police that situation.
The Minister and her colleagues abolished the 11-plus, but they did so without any clear and planned process of transition. Our duty as politicians is to protect children from an unregulated system and to ensure that their needs are met through a planned process of transition. A firm and acceptable solution will be found only when all parties agree on a long-term vision for the future of education in the North.
As Basil McCrea pointed out, there is already agreement on major issues, and we must take the further step. The SDLP wants an education system, based on fairness and equality, that guarantees parental choice. It wants to see high academic standards maintained in schools. Patterns of investment in education need to be reassessed, and massive investment must be made to raise standards in all schools. Reform of our education system takes time. The argument should not only be about deciding how our children transfer from primary school, it should involve long-term investment and significant restructuring of our whole education system to meet the demands of the twenty-first century.
We need to ensure that pupils leaving school do so with qualifications in the subjects that our economy needs, and which will be the basis for the skills needed to create the wealth that will improve the lives of all our citizens. The context for change is education reform, yet area-based planning has not been developed to the extent needed, and, although local learning communities have done good work, there is much that needs to be done.
In March, the SDLP put forward sensible proposals to avoid imminent chaos and to provide certainty for primary-7 pupils. Had our proposals been supported, the current confusion and stresses for pupils and parents could have been avoided. The educator-led group that we proposed would not be tasked with finding a short-term solution; it would be asked to assess all available solutions for achieving compromise in the context of long-term development of our education system, taking into account the future needs and demands that will be placed on our schools. Such a solution would give us a framework for the future delivery of an education system that is based on non-selective transfer and achieving excellence for all.
The four main Churches backed a proposal similar to ours. We still believe that it is the only sensible solution to have been proposed, and we urge parties to back our proposals. We also encourage them to outline their proposals for a way forward —
— on the basis of all-party talks to break the deadlock.
We ask the Alliance Party to clarify its amendment.
Michelle McIlveen (DUP)
One would think that we would have learned by now that the Minister is operating on the “Caitríona knows best” principle, despite the will of Members, schools, both controlled and Catholic maintained, and the people. I am not in the business of defending the Ulster Unionist Party, which is fit to defend itself, but perhaps it is not the Members who tabled the motion who have their heads in the sand, but the Minister.
Despite this being the fifth occasion on which we have debated transfer, any debate on this vital subject should always be welcomed and should not be dismissed, as it keeps the issue firmly on the agenda. It has not gone away, and it is imperative that the Minister is constantly reminded of that.
We have told the Minister of our wish for parental choice, and that we want a three-year interim CCEA-run transfer test. We have even reminded her of the position of the Catholic maintained schools that have opted for the unregulated test. Now, we are in a position where children have signed up to it and are ready to sit those unregulated tests. As I, and others, have said before, it is not the chaos that some had predicted, but it is far from ideal. I have always been of the view that a permanent solution needs to be reached regarding post-primary transfer, but that solution requires the wishes of those who want to retain academic selection to be respected.
Mr Lunn was unable to quantify the people who wish to retain academic selection in Northern Ireland, but today there are approximately 13,000 children signed up and ready to sit the transfer test this autumn.
Mervyn Storey (DUP)
Does the Member also accept that the Minister repeatedly talks about a minority — I am sure that we will hear it today — and states that she will not be held to ransom by that minority? She makes derogatory comments about the grammar sector. Does the Member agree with me that that sector educates 42% of children in post-primary schools? That is certainly a lot more pupils than are educated in the Irish-medium sector, which is on the decline, despite what the Minister tells us.
Michelle McIlveen (DUP)
I agree with the comments made by Mr Storey. That statistic should set the alarm bells ringing with the Minister that her vision is not shared by a sizeable proportion of this year’s cohort. It tells me that parents want equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity brings out the best, whereas equality of outcome suppresses it.
As Basil McCrea said, we found ourselves in the middle of a campaign by a regional newspaper asking us to find a solution. It is unfortunate that the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ has used such emotive headlines urging us to “sort out transfer chaos”, but it is good that it has decided to keep the matter in the public domain. Sadly, the newspaper has not been brave enough to express a viewpoint or to point the finger of blame where it truly belongs: it decided to tar all Members with the same brush.
Michelle McIlveen (DUP)
No, I do not have much time.
The majority of Members are willing to discuss the subject in a logical and measured manner. However, one party is not willing to sort out the issue. That party is burdened by ideological dogma, and it is the one party that did not sign the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ petition. That tells us everything that we need to know about the political will that is needed to obtain a resolution.
The DUP has sought to be constructive in its contributions to the debate on academic selection. We believe that a solution can be obtained if political dogma is left at the door. If the criticisms that were made about the old 11-plus test were dealt with, a way could surely be found to resolve matters.
I have sympathy with the Alliance Party amendment, because inter-party talks and, ultimately, agreement, are the only way forward. However, it is up to the Minister to set aside her prejudices, and, for the good of parents, pupils and the education system in general, to provide a greater degree of stability and certainty by allowing a CCEA-regulated test in the interim. On previous occasions, the Minister has made it clear that such a test is possible. It would be a sign of goodwill and of a willingness to seek consensus on her part if she were to take the next logical step and announce the introduction of a CCEA-regulated test for 2010-2011.
The absence of any movement on the Minister’s part will signal that she does not care what anyone thinks, believes or wants and that she is happy for the current situation to continue. She has talked about seeking consensus. Now is the time for her to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.
I have concerns about the motion and the amendment regarding the role of pupil profiling. However, I support the motion as it stands.
John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin)
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I wonder whether I will get my name in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ if I mention it. Some people have no self-respect.
I am surprised that the SDLP criticised the Ulster Unionist Party motion, because the SDLP tabled a similar motion on the no-day-named list, calling for the reintroduction of a test. That is a mistake —
John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin)
I will not. I will let the Member in later.
The Alliance Party amendment is well meaning. The difficulty with the entire debate is that people who are well meaning and who wish to be constructive are being used. They are being used by a very effective lobby that comes from certain grammar schools. The top-level, elitist grammar schools are using all their influence, whether through the media or through the Chamber, to lobby for the return of the 11-plus.
The issue is not about introducing a CCEA test for one, two or three years; it is about bringing back the 11-plus. The debate has been going on not only for the past 18 months or since the time when Martin McGuinness was the Minister of Education but for 50 years. For 50 years, there has been a strong lobby and an educational argument in favour of removing selection at age 11. However, on every occasion that selection was about to be removed, the grammar schools got an eleventh-hour reprieve and the 11-plus was saved. I have lost count of the number of people over the years who told me that they would be the last to sit the 11-plus. There was always another year after that, another year after that, and so on. Listen to this: there will not be another one. The 11-plus is gone, and it will not return.
Mervyn Storey (DUP)
If what the Member is saying is the case, then we are to assume that the Minister will not budge or bend to lobbies. What budging and bending did the Minister do to the Catholic bishops during the summer in relation to control of their schools, which they felt that they would lose? Will the Member provide detail of that lobbying and how successful it was?
John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin)
When the Member comes to discuss the Education Bill, to which that matter refers, I will be more than happy to discuss the issue. He will realise that issues around control of schools affect all sectors not only the Catholic Church.
I will return to the subject of the debate. The other part of the motion that disturbs me is pupil profiling. Mr McCrea and the Ulster Unionist Party tell us that they have been out talking to sectors, parents and teachers. Obviously, they have not talked to primary school teachers. Again and again, the primary school sector has said that it will not be involved in pupil profiling. Therefore, from where will pupil profiling come? That matter has been ruled out already; not just by the Minister and Sinn Féin, but by the teachers who would be involved in that process.
John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin)
A number of people have asked me to give way.
There is a chance for a new beginning for education. Those well-meaning groups and parties in the Assembly need to focus on that. Although it comes naturally in the cut and thrust of political debate, they must remove their political bias and look at the end goal. There is an opportunity to move education forward. Such well-meaning motions and amendments only give succour to the grammar school sector. Attention must be focused on the small number of grammar schools that have insisted that they will continue with academic selection.
It has been claimed that 12,000 to 13,000 pupils are prepared to sit the test. There has been some double-counting. However, regardless of how many sit the test, it has not been mentioned that, of those, say, 12,000 pupils, 5,000 will be told that they are not wanted by those schools. They will be told that they have failed. For those children, a wee letter will drop onto the mat that will tell them that they are failures at 10 years of age. Does the Assembly want that situation to continue?
Will education be an event or a process? Sinn Féin believes that it is a process. Therefore, let us focus on where attention is needed: on that small group of grammar schools which, in the past, used its influence in the corridors of powers to ensure that change did not come. It is now time to stand up to them and say that change has come, the 11-plus is gone and will not return. Those schools need to realise that.
The rest of society has moved on. The Catholic maintained sector has said that it will remove academic selection within two years. That is progress, and it shows that the process is moving. I have no doubt that there will be resistance to that. However, as regards the entitlement framework, area planning and all that goes with it, schools that sit out on their own will no longer be able to survive. They will not be able to provide the wide range of courses that is required to produce the talent and skills that are needed in the twenty-first century economy.
Therefore, the ball is rolling down the hill. Change is here. Let us stop throwing lifelines to the grammar school sector. Let us not be dissuaded by the latest editorial in one of the Belfast morning newspapers, which has been pro-selection all along. Let us stand up to them and say that, after 50 years, the game is up. It is over. There will be no more selection; no more testing children at 10 and 11 years of age. Let us move forward to an education system that brings the best outcomes for all children.
John McCallister (UUP)
As other Members said, the debate is the fifth that the Assembly has had on post-primary transfer. The Ulster Unionist Party has tabled three of those motions, which reflects its desire to find a solution to the current impasse. That solution must be found in order to bring relief to teachers, parents and children throughout the entire education system.
My party is realistic about what is needed to achieve a sustainable solution that is in children’s genuine interests. For that reason, although I recognise the logic behind the Alliance Party’s amendment, I cannot support it. The amendment will create another clause is a provision of a law which causes the law to (in effect)..." class="glossary">sunset clause, which will block long-term agreement. I understand that, at present, the Alliance Party supports sunset clauses. Such clauses do not make for good government or for good long-term solutions.
It is strange that the Alliance Party tabled the amendment when, in proposing it, Mr Lunn said what a big waste of time the whole thing is anyway. Despite that, he was able to speak about it for 10 minutes.
Stephen Farry (Alliance)
I am grateful to the Member for giving way.
I ask Mr McCallister to reflect that the motivation behind our amendment is a call for all-party talks, that those talks must be without prejudice, and that the Ulster Unionist Party’s motion directs the outcome of any talks towards a preordained outcome. If we are to engage genuinely with Sinn Féin in particular, we must bring that party to the table, and we must be able to discuss all the issues and be open to the direction in which such talks may go.
John McCallister (UUP)
Mr Lunn did not make any of that clear; I did not catch that from his opening remarks.
The motion is to give us a breathing space to get a solution from all the parties.
Basil McCrea (UUP)
I thank the Member for giving way; he is probably the only Member who gives way to me.
Does the Member agree that people are not listening to the fact that the Ulster Unionist Party is saying that it is prepared for change; that it agrees with many of the points that Members have made about the transitional nature of the way forward; and that it wants to find common ground for a common solution?
John McCallister (UUP)
I am grateful to my honourable friend for his intervention. Members across the House made those points. There is broad agreement on some of the issues and on building a future for the education system. People want an education system that meets the needs of all children and reflects what parents want. Nobody objects to that.
The difficulty is that the Minister is going ahead with her view regardless of whether there is agreement. Her view does not recognise the fact that Northern Ireland has a coalition Government with a power-sharing Executive, because the Minister’s view excludes completely any form of power sharing and the idea of building a shared future. The Minister is not listening to any other parties in the Assembly. She has chosen to ignore the majority of parties in the Assembly — the SDLP, the Alliance Party, the DUP and my party — and a significant proportion of the population of Northern Ireland. Her view does not take into account power sharing or a shared future. We must find a common way through our difficulties.
The Minister’s course of action does not interfere merely with the sensibilities of politicians; it is having a real effect. Several Members, including Mr Lunn, Mr Storey and Basil McCrea, said that education is the top issue that parents want sorted out. Parents regard that issue as much higher up the political agenda than policing and justice, yet it is not being addressed.
Across Northern Ireland, parents, children and teachers are preparing themselves for a very uncertain, chaotic and potentially damaging year. Children aged 10 and 11 now face multiple transfer tests to determine their future, and no one is quite sure how an unregulated system will pan out. The current situation is in no one’s interest.
There is a definite pattern in the Minister’s policies. Most educationalists are moving towards a demand-led education system that takes into consideration the different needs of children, parents and teachers and which will reflect abilities, beliefs and ethos. However, the Minister seems to be moving in the opposite direction to a one-size-fits-all centrally controlled and overly bureaucratic educational system that does not reflect the world that we live in, either economically or socially.
As my colleague Dominic Bradley is the party spokesperson for education, I have no intention of reiterating the valid points that he made. However, I feel that it is incumbent on all of us to work together to solve this problem. We should not be put off by the souring of a political romance that was kept buoyant by the political pundits and an insatiable media thirst.
Over the past week, I was saddened to read some of the comments from local people and, not least, those of journalists who are tarring us all with the one brush. Headlines and media reports tell of mass confusion; parties dithering over talks to end the logjam; politicians playing party politics with the education system of Northern Ireland; and, worst of all, the issue having gone right to the Assembly Floor and the message still having not got through.
I assure the House that the SDLP is not dithering. We want to see an end to this fiasco. However, it is unhelpful for the Minister and her party to simply reiterate that a decision has been made and that is that. If the stance of the DUP and Sinn Féin in education is anything to go by, we can only assume that political agendas are their priority, not the 13,700 children who are being forced to sit not one but as many as five tests to gain a grammar school place.
No matter what the Minister thinks, the decision should at least have been properly discussed with the parents and teachers of those children. As we have heard from the Minister, one size does not fit all. Where the education of a child is concerned, decisions that are made are very private and pressured and are not taken lightly. Ramming through transfer 2010, with nothing to replace it, has disadvantaged many children. I refer to children who have academic ability but, because their parents cannot afford to pay the fees for some of the selection tests, are being left behind.
We have heard all about the ‘Every School a Good School’ policy, but the Minister is obviously not listening to the people of Northern Ireland. Parents are totally disillusioned; they cannot even tell their children how this is going to work out for them. It is a parent’s duty to be able to console their child and explain the road ahead. However, this process has left everyone frustrated and confused. Parents and teachers alike are feeling let down and very resentful.
Huge pressure is being placed on teachers and principals to coach the children who want to sit the entrance tests, yet the Department states that they cannot do that. Thus, we have another strained relationship between teachers and parents.
Educational reform is all very well when there is an equitable and beneficial proposal for change. I am sorry to say that I see neither in the midst of this fiasco. Let this year be the only year that children, parents and principals are confused and generally distrusting of this place and its proposals for a better system. I ask the Minister, “Better for whom?”
I urge the Minister to show the compassion that she tells us she has for the children of Northern Ireland and sit down with all the parties represented in the House, as well as the appropriate educationalists, and settle the situation once and for all. The Minister can do that, and I urge her to please take that step.
Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin)
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I have always stated my preferences for a new, regulated system of transfer from primary to post-primary education that will ensure that all children can access the high-quality education to which they are entitled as a right. The motion, however, offers no prospects of such a system. Although it is predictably vague, the motion demands a statutory framework for academic entrance tests to be put in place while the CCEA devises a slightly different testing regime to facilitate the use of academic admissions criteria by grammar schools.
Tá sé i gceist ag an rún seo roghnú acadúil státurraithe agus teist aistrithe a thabhairt isteach arís go buan. Tá an rún seo ag éileamh orainn filleadh ar chóras teipthe na teiste aistrithe. Deirim go soiléir arís: tá an teist aistrithe imithe, agus ní bheidh sí ag teacht ar ais ar bhealach ar bith.
The motion seeks the permanent reinstatement of state-sponsored academic selection and a permanent 11-plus. The motion demands a return to the failed 11-plus system. Let me be absolutely clear and unambiguous: the 11-plus is gone. The 11-plus is not coming back in any shape or form. The motion demonstrates extreme naivety and a total failure to recognise the changing realities in our education system.
The proposers of the motion believe that, somehow, we can develop an acceptable and less traumatic version of the 11-plus. I want to be absolutely clear: there is no acceptable way of designating the majority of our children as failures. There is no acceptable form of academic rejection.
The motion implicitly demands that the past should continue unchanged into the future and demonstrates a totally closed mindset by denying that there should even be a debate about the future of post-primary transfer. It denies the presence of any demand for change. It denies the fact that there was consultation on transfer 2010 guidance. We received 3,195 responses, of which 95% supported change. It denies the fact that the number of children entered for entrance tests may show, for the first time, that the majority of parents have rejected academic selection.
Through the motion, those in favour of the old system demand that everybody else falls into line with them. The proposers of the motion appear to have their hands over their eyes and ears, which is no basis for making decisions on the future of our education system and on how we meet the needs of our children. In contrast to that approach, I spent two years developing compromise proposals and repeatedly sought engagement on them. However, as with the content of the motion, the response to those proposals was a refusal to consider anything but the status quo and a refusal to discuss any change.
Tá géarghá le díospóireacht dhearfach agus fócas ar an todhchaí, ach caithfidh muid níos mó ná mian aineolach filleadh ar an am atá thart a bheith againn má tá an díospóireacht sin le bheith againn.
A constructive debate and focus on the future is urgently needed, but that needs to be more than an ill-informed desire to return to the past. Our future system of post-primary transfer must be seen as an integral and important part of a wider reform agenda. A focus on the future must consider the need to ensure that half our children do not leave school without five good GCSEs, including English and maths or Irish and maths, depending on the language through which children are learning.
There has been much inequality and injustice in 2008-09 and in previous years. The most recent figures profiling our grammar school population show that the rate at which a low-income or free-school-meal-entitled child gets a grammar school place is one in 18. The rate for other children is one in two. It is important that we deliver an undistorted and revised curriculum to nine- and 10-year-old children that is welcomed and valued by our primary schools. I applaud many of our primary schools for standing up for the rights of children.
The process of post-primary transfer cannot be viewed in isolation. We must also help to deliver on curriculum reform not only in respect of the revised curriculum but the entitlement framework. I seriously doubt that the proposers of the motion understand or even consider the social and economic needs of our young people. We cannot slavishly continue with an outdated and discredited model of post-primary education that envisages two crudely separated routes: the academic and the sub-academic.
Our education system needs to serve our children and produce young people with diverse and flexible skills. We cannot accept a system that suppresses opportunity for those who are less well off and demoralises up to two thirds of our children every year. We cannot continue to waste up to two years of each child’s primary education because of a crude and educationally unsound child-sorting process.
The 11-plus system is a failed system. Academic selection is a failed system. Any education system that judges even one child to be a failure at the age of 11 is wrong, unjust and indefensible. Every stage in a child’s education is important. The way in which we move children from one stage in their education to another is equally important, but it is only one part of the jigsaw that will result in the total reform of our education system. My vision is to elevate our education system from one that is admired for the successes of only its highest achievers to one in which all children have the opportunity and support to be high achievers based on their unique talents and abilities, academic and otherwise.
Níl aon áit don roghnú acadúil ná don diúltú sa chóras sin.
There is no place in that system for academic selection and rejection. The proposers of the motion and those who support them seem unable to grasp that change is taking place and will leave them behind. We already know that denominational grammar schools intend to abandon academic selection in the next few years. The number of children entering this year’s entrance test shows that parental opinion is moving in exactly the same direction. In a short time, academic selection will be a fringe activity, sustained only if entrance tests survive the many dangers that accompany them. Within view is a critical point when the significant majority of parents will feel that they do not need to put their child through the agonies of entrance testing in order to secure the high-quality post-primary provision to which they are entitled.
D’fhoilsigh mé an leagan deiridh den treoir ar aistriú 2010 ar 5 Meitheamh 2009. Is é aistriú 2010 an beartas atá ag mo Roinn d’aistriú páistí ón mbunscoil go dtí an iarbhunscoil.
I published the final version of the transfer 2010 guidance on 25 June. Transfer 2010 is my Department’s policy for the transfer of children from primary to post-primary schools. I consulted widely on that policy earlier this year, and, by the closing date, I had received 3,195 responses, the majority of which supported the position set out in the guidance. The guidance, if followed, will deliver an effective and fair system of post-primary transfer. It will also deliver a system of post-primary transfer that helps to answer the wider and desperately urgent reform agenda, embracing demographic decline and school sustainability, the delivery of the entitlement framework and underachievement.
The guidance strongly recommends that schools should not use academic admissions criteria. I have urged grammar schools to follow that recommendation, both on equality grounds and because of the risks of dysfunction. I have warned that any entrance test operating outside the guidance is, I believe, a legal minefield.
The amendment tabled by members of the Alliance Party would put in place a test for one year pending a solution arrived at through inter-party talks. Although I welcome that attempt to be constructive, it is, nonetheless, a naive attempt. I have already brought forward compromise proposals that would have resulted in a transition test for three years, supported by a legislative framework. Other parties would not even discuss those proposals. I will not introduce an official test for even one year without a legislative framework first being in place.
That brings us back to where we are today, with a lack of willingness on the part of others to even discuss a compromise. There will, therefore, be no return to the failed system of academic selection. The 11-plus is gone; it is not coming back. The new arrangements are now in place; they will not be reversed.
Bhí deis ag an gCoiste Feidhmiúcháin ar thrí ócáid le dhá bhliain anuas plé a dhéanamh ar na socruithe don aistriú agus le teacht ar chomhsheasamh ar an gceist. D’iarr mé an díospóireacht sin trí huaire, agus chuir an DUP bac ar an díospóireacht sin trí huaire
The Executive had three opportunities over the past two years to discuss and come to an agreed position on transfer arrangements. Three times I asked for that discussion; three times the discussion was blocked by the DUP. As Education Minister, I could not accept ongoing uncertainty and deadlock. The debate is now closed. The policy of the Department of Education is that transfer should not involve academic testing.
The small number of schools which have broken away from the education system need to rethink their position, and they need to put the interests of children before their perceived institutional self-interest. Academic selection is educationally unsound; it does not meet the needs of a modern society; it generates and sustains inequality; and it has no place in our education system.
Stephen Farry (Alliance)
The Alliance Party has been accused by most parties of being well-meaning. People have the greatest sympathy for our amendment. Obviously, we accept the charge of being well-meaning.
The flipside of that coin is that we have been accused of being naive in our approach to trying to reach agreement. Our approach is extremely hard-nosed and realistic. Given the status quo, no one can be proud of our current post-primary transfer system. It is not a sustainable long-term way forward. Society needs leadership, and we are showing leadership, not naivety.
In the Chamber, there is a clear difference of opinion about the way forward on post-primary transfer. There is a range of views among parties and, indeed, within parties about which model offers the best way forward. In a sense, that is not what today’s debate is about. Our amendment is based on two points. First, an interim measure is needed to see us through the anarchy of an unregulated system that is the worst possible outcome for our society. Secondly, parties need to come together and discuss the way forward without prejudice.
The difference between our amendment and the Ulster Unionist Party motion is that the motion will, in a sense, legitimise the grammar school lobby’s breakaway on testing. That is wrong and should not have happened. It is counterproductive.
Mervyn Storey (DUP)
The Member refers to a “breakaway” and uses the term “legitimise”. We are talking about legal reality. I know that the party opposite has a problem with law and order and complying with the law, but schools are entitled, under the law, to set tests. That must be the basis on which we move forward. It is dismissive to label lobbies as breakaways and subsequently ignore them.
Stephen Farry (Alliance)
They are making a solo run. We support a single framework for post-primary transfer throughout Northern Ireland into which all schools fit. It is not productive for schools or sectors to do their own thing.
The Ulster Unionist motion prejudices the outcome of any talks. Although that party claims to support talks, it is counterproductive to have a preordained solution. By contrast, our amendment is open-ended, and we accept the need for discussions. In particular, if Sinn Féin comes to the table, it should know that those discussions will be without prejudice and that all views will be taken into account. To date, Sinn Féin is the only party that has failed to support the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ campaign and the notion of interim tests.
John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin)
All-party talks are one thing, but our party will not allow the editorial staff of any news organisation to dictate our policy and timetable.
Stephen Farry (Alliance)
I remember the days when Sinn Féin used to campaign at elections by demanding all-party talks. We have moved on. [Interruption.]
Stephen Farry (Alliance)
I recognise that no party will allow editorial policy to determine its stance. However, I believe that it is in Sinn Féin’s interests to come to the table to discuss the matter with other parties. The fact that Sinn Féin picked the education portfolio has put it in a powerful position. However, its view is out of line with the vast majority in our society. Moreover, for Sinn Féin to claim that it has got rid of the 11-plus is not a sustainable argument. It is also washing its hands of a situation in which academic selection is continuing in an unregulated manner and causing the risk of even greater inequality entering the system. Students and parents will experience more stress, and students will sit even more exams. That cannot be right.
I will respond to some of the comments that have been made during the debate. Dominic Bradley sought clarification of our amendment. I assure him that it is about making an interim test available to schools as part of a range of different selection criteria.
Such a test would not be compulsory, nor would it be the only way open to schools to proceed. However, it should be part of a menu, as an interim measure, that would get us over the hurdle as an alternative to an unregulated system, which is the worst possible outcome.
2.00 pm
I will follow up on a point that was made by Michelle McIlveen about the numbers of people who are signing up for the entrance tests as proof of the interest from parents. I have to urge caution about reading too much into what parents are doing. Some parents may well support academic selection, while others may have got the message that they will not get their child into a particular school if he or she does not sit those tests. It is not out of choice that they are doing so; it is out of fear. It is important that we recognise the range of motivations that parents have.
Our amendment is geared towards trying to find consensus in the House on the way forward. I urge parties to unite behind it and to send out, for once, a united message on this issue to parents and children.
Basil McCrea (UUP)
It is interesting to hear the views of others. I attempted to get involved in some of the discussions, but, sadly, that was not possible. Frankly, that shows what is wrong with the entire process.
We brought forward our proposals with good intent, but some Members simply did not listen to what we had to say. Had they listened, they could have taken a view as to whether they agreed or disagreed. Instead, in pursuit of their own petty, party political process, they chose to have a rant on their own terms. The proposals that we brought forward are not against change; we want change. We are prepared to see change happen and we are prepared to work with anybody and everybody to achieve it. However, as SDLP colleagues said, we simply cannot achieve such a magnitude of change in one year. Such a degree of change requires planning, consensus and genuine consultation, not just papers that are put out to encourage Sinn Féin Members to write in. Such change must genuinely address the concerns of the people of Northern Ireland, and there are different views on all the issues.
I was disappointed in the language that was used by the Alliance Party’s contributors to the debate. Dr Farry said that they were bringing forward their proposals with good intent. However, Mr Lunn, who proposed the amendment, seemed to be saying that no one will back it, but here it is anyway. The use of words such as “breakaway” does not appear to be egalitarian. The use of phrases such as “needing protection from the law” sends out a certain message, as does talking about the wrongs of the process. That does not suggest that the Alliance Party is entering the discussions without preconditions or without taking a particular position.
I have not engaged previously with the Alliance Party on this issue, but it seems to be riding two horses. On the one hand, it says that it is strong and wants to achieve things, but on the other hand, its Members have a go at the Minister and say that she cannot do away with entrance tests without having an alternative. That is a confused, incoherent and incomplete message. The Alliance Party seems to be saying that its position on the tests is pretty close to what others want to do, but that they should go on for only one year. That position serves only to transfer the pain to the children in P6, P5 and P4. Sunset clauses, whether on policing and justice or on education, do not work. We need something to keep us going until we can all agree to come up with something different. That was a deeply disappointing contribution from a party that seems to have a paucity of ideas about how to move forward.
Basil McCrea (UUP)
The answer is no.
We share the concerns expressed by SDLP colleagues, and Mr O’Dowd, on certain issues. Our position is not prescriptive.
I was struck by Mary Bradley’s contribution in particular; I hope that she does not mind me singling her out. She said that education is a “private and pressured decision” and that the Minister’s attempt to ram transfer 2010 through is at the bottom of all that is wrong in this debate. Quite simply, the Minister of Education is not listening.
Some Members mentioned the ‘Belfast Telegraph’. Indeed, Michelle McIlveen said that it is a pity about some of the headlines that have appeared. I could agree; however, the reason for having the debate is to show the people of Northern Ireland why we cannot reach a consensus, why we cannot get round a table and sort this out, and why we are failing to reach agreement.
Mervyn Storey (DUP)
The Minister referred repeatedly to responses to transfer 2010. However, her party organised those responses. Mr O’Dowd referred earlier to double counting, but they double counted the responses to the Department. Therefore, it was a fix. That is the only reason why the Minister could stand up and say that she had responses in favour of transfer 2010.
Basil McCrea (UUP)
I thank the Member for his intervention. The point is well made and well reiterated.
I have attempted, on behalf of my colleagues and my party, to table a motion that would encourage genuine debate. Instead, I have been met with people who heckle from a sedentary position, who will not take interventions, who will not engage with the issue —
Basil McCrea (UUP)
If we are serious about resolving the situation, it will take change, and it will require the Minister to change. Change is not something that comes easily to the Minister. I have seen no change in her demeanour, speeches, or in the way that she comes forward. She will not engage with anybody; she gets Mr O’Dowd to do that.
At the risk of proving that the Minister is entirely predictable, I prepared some notes. Sadly, I do not think that I have to change any of them, because I knew what was going to be said. I want to make it absolutely clear that her strategy to try to paint parties on this side of the House as parties that will not change is absolutely wrong. She is wrong in that, she is wrong in her educational strategy, and she is wrong in the way that she misjudges the people of Northern Ireland. The failure of this Department of Education is down to her and to her alone.
On this issue, we will change. We recognise the need for change. Changes are necessary because demographics are shifting. In finding an acceptable way forward, we have not argued for the retention of the 11-plus. We have not said that we want to go back to that system. Instead, we have said that some form of academic credentials must be used. We are open to those professionals who wish to give us advice. I have been accused of being naive, although I have been accused of worse. However, I am not sure on what basis a tennis professional makes that accusation.
I have been through the Northern Ireland education system. I have studied the STEM subjects. I have the qualifications, and I come from a family that valued the opportunities that were available for me to get them. In looking around this House, I see nothing but disappointment. The people of Northern Ireland have said repeatedly that we must find a solution. Issues were agreed at St Andrews, and although I was not party to the discussions that took place, it is clear that academic selection was one such issue and that an agreement was reached on it.
You have torn up that agreement for your own selfish political ideals. There is room for compromise, and there is a way forward. Even now, it is not too late.
My SDLP colleagues asked for clarification on the Alliance Party amendment because they may be minded to support it. I say to those Members that the issue is about finding some time and about giving us some space. I will put on the record, and I will say on behalf of the party, that I promise that we will engage seriously to try to find an acceptable solution. It is not the way forward to stick with a totally unregulated system that, according to the Minister, is full of legal minefields and puts stress and strain on children and parents.
Basil McCrea (UUP)
If the amendment falls, which I expect that it will, I ask the SDLP to support the motion.
Basil McCrea (UUP)
The only difference between the motion and the amendment is that the motion does not contain a one-year clause is a provision of a law which causes the law to (in effect)..." class="glossary">sunset clause.
The school bell has gone.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 20; Noes 64.
AYES
Mr Attwood, Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr PJ Bradley, Mr Burns, Mr Durkan, Dr Farry, Mr Ford, Mr Gallagher, Mrs Hanna, Ms Lo, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr A Maginness, Mr McCarthy, Mr McGlone, Mr Neeson, Mr O’Loan, Mr P Ramsey, Mr B Wilson.
Tellers for the Ayes: Dr Farry and Mr McCarthy.
NOES
Mr Adams, Ms Anderson, Mr Armstrong, Mr Boylan, Mr Bresland, Mr Brolly, Mr Buchanan, Mr Campbell, Mr T Clarke, Mr W Clarke, Mr Cobain, Rev Dr Robert Coulter, Mr Craig, Mr Cree, Mr Dodds, Mr Doherty, Mr Donaldson, Mr Easton, Mr Elliott, Sir Reg Empey, Mrs Foster, Mr Gardiner, Ms Gildernew, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hilditch, Mr G Kelly, Mr A Maskey, Mr P Maskey, Mr McCallister, Mr F McCann, Ms J McCann, Mr McCartney, Mr McCausland, Mr B McCrea, Mr I McCrea, Dr W McCrea, Mr McFarland, Mrs McGill, Miss McIlveen, Mr McLaughlin, Mr McNarry, Mr McQuillan, Mr Molloy, Lord Morrow, Mr Moutray, Mr Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill, Rev Dr Ian Paisley, Mr Poots, Ms Purvis, Ms S Ramsey, Mr G Robinson, Mrs I Robinson, Mr K Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Ms Ruane, Mr Savage, Mr Shannon, Mr Simpson, Mr Spratt, Mr Storey, Mr Wells.
Tellers for the Noes: Mr McCallister and Mr B McCrea.
Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put.
The result is unclear. The Question will be put again after Question Time. In the meantime, Members may take their ease.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)