Schools: Chief Inspector's Report

Private Members' Business – in the Northern Ireland Assembly at 11:15 am on 13 November 2012.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of William Hay William Hay Speaker 11:15, 13 November 2012

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate.  The proposer will have 10 minutes in which to propose the motion and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech.  All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes.

Photo of Jonathan Craig Jonathan Craig DUP

I beg to move

That this Assembly acknowledges the recent report by the chief inspector of schools into the leadership and management of schools in Northern Ireland; notes, with concern, the underperformance of some managers and teachers; and calls on the Minister of Education to give greater leadership and to introduce more stringent measures to increase confidence in the system of schools management.

It is quite alarming to see such a report from the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI).  It highlights a number of serious issues in the education system.  The chief inspector, Noelle Buick, details that the leadership and management quality in many schools falls below standard.  The report clearly states that 22% of primary schools and 39% of post-primary schools have issues with management quality.  It is an interesting statement that almost one in five schools in the primary sector and two in five schools in the secondary sector have an issue with how schools are run.

The report does not criticise the overall achievement of those attending the schools or the teaching quality, but it does criticise how those schools are governed.  That is concerning because the report does not highlight one sector only but addresses schools across the board.  It states that there is an issue about how schools are managed in all sectors, but it does not state how a lack of leadership quality has been identified.  It sets out some of the difficulties that now face management in secondary and primary schools, such as problems that are due to the economic downturn.  All schools face that issue and have great difficulties in meeting all the programmes that are put on them with the same resources or, in some cases, diminishing resources.  Therefore, huge challenges are built in, which at least the report clearly identifies.

I want to point out that I am reporting directly from what Noelle Buick says about those schools.  Personally, although I see some issues, I never would have dreamt that they were as large as described in the report.  It is not up to me to say whether the report is right, wrong or indifferent; that is what the inspectors found.  I have a lot of sympathy for teachers.  I have always openly admitted to any teacher that it is a job that I could not do.  I would not have the patience to teach in a classroom.  I have huge admiration for all teachers, some of whom not only teach but have to manage and run their schools. 

I feel that there is a lack of understanding among the general public about how schools are actually managed.  That is why I want to take a few moments to outline some of the ways in which that happens. 

Normally, schools have middle management, which is made up of the heads of departments, year heads, etc, who run their particular department or look after the children in a particular year.  The general public may think that those are full-time positions.  The simple truth is that they are not.  The positions are held by full-time teachers who have part-time management roles in their schools.  That puts a completely different slant on the difficulties that those individuals face in the education system.  They do work that goes far beyond their original role as teachers.  Although they get training, help and assistance, at the end of the day, they are being asked to do two jobs, something which is frowned upon in the Chamber.

Beyond middle management is senior management, which includes heads of the junior and senior school, finance managers, curriculum co-ordinators, timetable managers, vice-principals and principals.  Again, we are back to the same issue in the management of schools.  All of those positions, bar those of principal in most schools, are carried out on a part-time basis.  Most — in fact, all — are teaching positions, so those staff have to teach.  They also have to look after all the serious managerial issues that occur in schools.  That may give the general public an idea of the difficulties and pressures that face those in "management" in the primary and post-primary sectors.  In fact, even in many primary schools whose numbers have decreased to a certain level, principals are also part-time teachers because the schools' budgets do not allow for them to be full-time principals. 

The other level of management in a school is the board of governors.  Yet again, a group of individuals go into schools and give of their time on a part-time, voluntary basis.  There is no recompense.  Governors go in and give of their time freely to serve in schools. 

What does all of that lead to?  It leads to massive pressure on individuals to do two jobs.  Then, we get reports that state that there are problems with the management of many schools.  Is it any wonder?  I do not want the public to think that, for some reason, full-time managers in schools cannot do their jobs.  The simple truth is that, in many cases, they are being asked to do far too much, and we need to read the ETI report in that context.

That brings us to some very serious issues in education, and I believe that the Minister himself needs to look at those.  

First of all, teachers have to take courses and train up before they are ever allowed to even apply for a lot of positions, especially those in senior management.  If that is the case, one really has to ask this question:  if there are failings in the system, how did those people get the qualifications to take on senior management positions in schools?  Why is it that we are sitting with one in five in primary schools, which, according to the report, is not good, and two in five in our secondary sector, which, again according to report, is not good.  If that is the case, are there serious failings with the way in which we train and qualify teachers to take on senior management positions in schools?  I hope that the Minister will have another look at that, because according to the report, it is a big issue. 

Is there a problem with the way in which senior management in schools is selected?  I have to say, from my experience of all this, that it is a very long, drawn-out process.  You go through a number of interviews with potential principals and then the boards, as they are today, take over the process.  I have seen things in that system that are very alarming.  Is there a need to overhaul the process of selection and how we process and select senior management in schools?

To my mind, it not good enough to see reports that condemn the management in our schools.  What I want to see is what the inspectorate and others will do to help out hard-pressed managers — VPs, principals, heads of departments, etc — who are under huge pressure to deliver education to our children —

Photo of William Hay William Hay Speaker

Time is almost gone.

Photo of Jonathan Craig Jonathan Craig DUP

— and to run our schools.  The inspectorate has to stop coming down on those individuals with a hard hammer and, instead, help and assist them to become better.

Photo of William Hay William Hay Speaker

The Member's time is up.

Photo of Jonathan Craig Jonathan Craig DUP

I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

Photo of Michaela Boyle Michaela Boyle Sinn Féin

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.  I support the motion and thank the Members opposite for bringing the issue to the House today. 

High-quality, good leadership and management are key in any organisation and, indeed, in our schools in helping to raise standards and in providing good-quality education for our children.  The ETI report identifies areas of good performance and the many challenges for our education system.  It realises the challenges facing the delivery of education in our schools today.  As the Member opposite alluded to, the quality of leadership and management was not good enough in 22% of primary schools and 39% of post-primary schools.  It is clear that there are problems, and more needs to be done to address the quality of management.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Dallat] in the Chair)

Schools and organisations that have problems have an adverse impact on pupils' learning, and that can leave those pupils with a poor outlook on their learning experience.  The flip side to that is good, effective leadership, which can make a difference to the quality of pupils' learning experience.  Schools must have a strong vision and place a strong emphasis on promoting learning and teaching attainment.  Effective management of a school, where staff, the board of governors, parents, pupils and the wider community they serve work together, will promote best practice and demonstrate high levels of awareness.  To help develop good leadership skills, they will encourage and empower staff. 

What we need in our schools is effective, motivated management that is not afraid to challenge and, where necessary, take the appropriate steps.  If a school leader has the commitment, drive and energy to deliver the ethos of the school, that will have a positive effect on others.

As recently as last Friday, I visited two schools in my area.  I was delighted to be in the presence of such good leaders and principals.  Both principals demonstrated to me that they give a strong personal commitment to key priorities such as improving learning and what they do to inspire and motivate staff, parents and the wider community.

Recognising the contribution of others and involving them in school activities is key.  For example, one principal told me of a parent who they identified as being very good at art and who was brought into the school to work alongside the children.  That demonstrates good leadership in schools, where they involve parents and the wider community.

Leadership is about setting out and inspiring others with a long-term strategic vision.  The report highlights many good examples of improvements in the sector, and that has to be welcomed.  Where many schools have overcome economic and social disadvantage — Mr Craig spoke about schools experiencing problems in that area — they have a clear focus on achieving value for their resources and raising standards to achieve good outcomes for all learners.  Those organisations enable learners to develop their skills so that they can progress to a later stage of learning.  However, the report clearly identifies the resource difficulties that schools experience.

The report highlights areas that could be given further consideration: the plans to review the notice period given to schools; the emphasis on a two-way process in Scotland and here; the more challenging approach in England; and the use of unannounced inspections as in other jurisdictions, such as Ireland, which aim to determine the effectiveness of education during a normal school day. 

I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on the findings of the paper.  I concur with the Member across the House —

Photo of Michaela Boyle Michaela Boyle Sinn Féin

There are many good schools, and teachers find themselves in difficulties at this time.

Photo of Danny Kinahan Danny Kinahan UUP

As ever, I very much welcome being able to speak on the subject and welcome the motion.  I speak as a Member and not as the Vice-Chair of the Committee.

The inspectorate is phenomenally important to everything that happens in schooling.  Before I get into that, I must say that, normally, I am mild, meek and discerning and do not go for a fight — the Minister may not necessarily agree; it is good to see him here — but, when I see something that needs changing or needs work, I will make sure there is a fight to make sure that we get for Northern Ireland what is needed.  At the moment, most of our problems are from the point of view that we have one dogma, one line being forced on all of us.  We get the impression that the Minister is not really listening and will go on regardless.

I will get back to the debate.  Last week, I visited a school and saw exactly how inspection should work.  It was a school with a new head, and, while he was taking over the reins and getting things to work, the inspectorate did not bother him.  It let him have the time and place to get everything correct and in the right order.  When it did come in, it discussed all the matters with the parents and teachers rather than finding holes and trying to pick the school apart.  It was all done from a very constructive standpoint.  That is how the inspectorate should work, and it should not be a body that terrifies everyone in schools.

On some more general points, it is vital that the inspectorate is seen as totally independent.  That means being independent from the Department and the Minister.  I propose that we should get the inspectorate to report to OFMDFM or some other body, so that it is separate from the dogma that is being pushed on us by the Education Minister.  We should also review how the inspectorate does things.  You have already heard me say that it does some things extremely well.  However, many see it as a blunt instrument or bludgeon used on their school.  We need to view it as a school assessment body that works hand in hand with schools.  This week, we all received a list of district assessors who will work with the schools.  That is a step in the right direction.  We need to have a nice assessment system but with a dynamic, stringent and strong control at the end and only at the end.  We do not want to see it published all over the web until it is absolutely necessary.

Today, in the answer to a question from my colleague Mr Gardiner, we learn that 38 of the 59 people who are inspecting schools have no classroom experience.  We need to make sure that more teachers are involved, and we need to look at having some system that includes teachers throughout so that everybody has faith in it.  We know from the report that Northern Ireland is doing very well when it comes to A* to C grades; we are on 75·6% against the UK's 68·4%.  However, we also know that we do appallingly at the other end.  Only 32% of school leavers on free school meals achieve five GCSEs.  That is on where the inspectorate needs to concentrate, but we need to move away from judging purely on GCSEs.  As we have hinted today, we need to judge on leadership and management.

Photo of Jo-Anne Dobson Jo-Anne Dobson UUP

I thank the Member for giving way.  Is he confident that good leadership is coming from the Department?

Photo of John Dallat John Dallat Social Democratic and Labour Party

The Member has an extra minute.

Photo of Danny Kinahan Danny Kinahan UUP

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy SpeakerSometimes I am confident that we are getting good leadership.  However, look at the principles of leadership, of which I will choose five: know your staff and look after their well-being; keep your followers informed; ensure that each task is understood, supervised and achieved; build a team; and know yourself and seek self-improvement.  Those are just five of the 11 principles of leadership.  The Department achieves the other six, but it does not set the example on those five.  I am concerned that we are judging leadership more on the paper exercise of whether we do well against one another in league tables rather than by assessing properly the teachers and giving them the time, the place and, as we heard, the resources so that they can lead.

In some people, leadership is born; in many others, it has to be trained.  That is the example that the Department should set.  That means consulting, listening and bringing everyone together.  That is what I ask the Minister to do from today.  Today's debate is important.  There is so much more that we would all like to say.  We need to see more resources going to the schools so that they can do the leadership and the management.  We need an independent inspectorate, and we need it to be a bit more softly-softly, with a whip at the end.  We support the motion.

Photo of Seán Rogers Seán Rogers Social Democratic and Labour Party

I thank the DUP for tabling the motion.  I support it.

It is worth noting that the chief inspector's report states:

"We have a sound education system that serves many of its learners effectively."

It disappoints me that there is little acknowledgement of those who give us that sound education system and continue to deliver at the chalkface: our school staff.  I mean not just our teachers but all the staff who help to create a stimulating learning environment for our children, despite, in some cases, experiencing poor classroom conditions and having to cope with half-baked ideas such as computer-based assessments and levels of progression, never mind increased bureaucracy.  We all recognise the challenges facing us in difficult economic times, but a little acknowledgement, especially from the inspectorate, would go a long way.

Minister, you said last week that school leaders played a vital role in raising standards.  You are right.  Whether it is the classroom leader, the department leader or the school leader, leadership starts and ends in the classroom.  That is where school leaders are born.  You have to have the ability to ignite the minds of your audience, whether it be the four-year-old, the 14-year-old or the 44-year-old member of staff.  We all remember teachers who made a significant impact on our life and possibly inspired us into various careers. 

I am disappointed that the SDLP's amendment did not make the debate today.  It was simply an additional line, basically saying:

"and support to further embed the use of effective monitoring and self-evaluation strategies to effect improvement".

If effective monitoring and evaluation strategies are embedded in classroom practice, the conversation about what constitutes good practice begins to effect improvement.  Then, this conversation begins to occur naturally at a departmental level, and the development of a culture of learning for all extends from the classroom to the Department and throughout schools.  We need monitoring and self-evaluating strategies embedded at senior leadership level.  Certainly, the statistics of 30% in preschool settings, 22% in primary and 39% in post-primary settings where it is deemed not good enough would be significantly reduced.

I give credit to John Anderson from the ETI, who, in the report, stated that the report acknowledged that there was a "fragmented approach to leadership development" .  However, that is not necessarily the fault of schools.  As one who, in the past, was responsible for trying to translate the DE guidance 'Together Towards Improvement' into practice, I know that it is no mean feat to embed that advice in an effective manner in the day-to-day running of a school.

Schools cannot do this work on their own.  With the winding down of the boards and the promise of ESA, one of the first casualties was the boards' CASS service.  How can one post-primary maths officer service the needs of all the schools in a board area?  Is that a contributing factor to poor performance in maths departments?  The report states that, in those departments:

"some heads of...departments take insufficient responsibility for leading improvement and sharing best practice in teaching, learning and assessment."

At a senior leadership level, the Professional Qualification for Headship (PQH) is a starting point.  However, it needs to be supplemented with a master's-type study.  Minister, I urge caution when you acknowledge the wide range of skills required for school leadership, from pedagogy to financial management and from human resources to business-style leadership.  You should not underestimate pedagogy.  Our school leaders are leading a wide range of individual and unique talents.  It is not an assembly line.  Principals in Finland — I am not advocating this, mind you — are required by law to have been a teacher and must continue to be engaged in classroom teaching for at least two or three hours a week.  This lends them credibility among their teachers, enables them to remain connected to their children and ensures that the pedagogical leadership is not merely rhetoric but a day-to-day reality.

If we want a first-class education system, we must invest in first-rate leadership development not only for new teachers but for all our staff.  Some good experiments are taking place on a cross-border basis and can be seen in some of the work from the RTU and the Centre for Cross Border Studies.  Good leadership and a strong system of self-evaluation in our schools make people feel better.  If people feel better, they will perform better.  If they perform better, leadership will become better, and, as a direct consequence, pupils' achievements will improve.

Photo of John Dallat John Dallat Social Democratic and Labour Party

The Member's time is almost up.

Photo of Seán Rogers Seán Rogers Social Democratic and Labour Party

Minister, begin the conversation on what constitutes good practice; get monitoring and evaluation right in our schools; give the right support; ensure that, within ESA, we have a properly funded school —

Photo of Seán Rogers Seán Rogers Social Democratic and Labour Party

— development unit with pedagogy at the centre, and we will get the right result.

Photo of Trevor Lunn Trevor Lunn Alliance 11:45, 13 November 2012

I welcome the motion today because it, at least, gives us an opportunity to discuss these things.  When I first read the motion, I thought that it was unduly critical of teachers, governors and principals.  However, in his opening remarks, Mr Craig clarified that that is certainly not the intention, so we are happy enough to support the motion.

Jonathan also referred to the onerous duties placed on teachers in terms of extra activities rather than just teaching.  I completely agree with him.  However, a lot of those problems are, indirectly, of our making.  There is a lack of progress at a political level, and layer upon layer of reports, duties and initiatives come from the Department.  Just this morning, I heard from a primary school headmaster who has been told by letter that he has to complete the assessment tests by Christmas because the computer glitch has apparently been sorted out.  He has 400 pupils and is expected to complete those nonsense tests by Christmas.  That is another one.  

I will not go into a lot of statistics, but the ETI report is not entirely negative.  There are quite a few positives in it as well, although I would not want to downplay in any way the obvious items that require attention.  It states that the proportion of students achieving at least five GCSEs at grades A* to C, which is not a measure that I like to dwell on, went up from 64% to 73% in the reporting period.  Leadership and management in post-primary English departments evaluated as good or better has gone up by 10%.  In addition, the quality of strategic leadership by governors was evaluated as good or better in 80% of primary schools.  So, it is not all negative by any means, although that is not to say that I am happy with the situation or that things do not need to improve: clearly, they do.  The Minister, in his Putting Pupils First statement last week, acknowledged quite a few areas where there was room for improvement and various initiatives are in place.  Sir Robert Salisbury will, hopefully, report shortly on the common funding formula. 

What I really want to talk about is the Minister's initiative to bring in the OECD to do a report on our entire system.  That is a very worthwhile initiative that is to be welcomed.  He has not given us the terms of reference for that yet, and we would like to know exactly what the OECD will be asked to do.  However, he indicated that it would examine the whole structure of the system and that leadership and management would certainly come into it.  He indicated that his Department would be examined like everybody else.  In particular, I hope that the OECD will examine the situation with the inspectorate and the argument over whether it should be independent or happily attached to the Department.  The current inspector and the previous one have both indicated that they are not unduly unhappy with the present arrangement.  Some of us beg to differ, but that is for another day.  I certainly look forward to hearing what an organisation as august as the OECD will have to say about our education system.

I wonder what we will do when we receive the report.  If the OECD comes down heavily on the side of academic selection, says that it values our system and thinks that it works very well, will the Minister accept that?  If it comes down the other way and says that academic selection is a monstrous anachronism that should have been done away with 40 years ago, will the supporters of academic selection accept that?  I doubt it.  The OECD may say that our separate school systems that educate Catholic and Protestant children separately until they are 18 are marvellous, and pigs might fly.  I wonder what we will do with the heavyweight recommendations of an OECD report when they come through.  I see that my time is nearly up, so I will have to leave that one hanging in the air. 

For the meantime, I am glad to see a truly independent body having a look at our system, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say later in the debate.

Photo of Brenda Hale Brenda Hale DUP

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this serious issue.  I welcome the debate so far.  I welcome the number — apologies; I shall get my speech in order. 

I welcome the number of success stories highlighted in the report by the chief inspector of schools, but, like many, I was shocked but sadly not surprised that some children still fail to fulfil their potential.  Outcomes need to improve for learners of English and maths across all sectors, especially those who come from the most disadvantaged backgrounds.  Only 32% of school leavers entitled to free school meals achieve grades A to C in five subjects.  How can we turn that round?  How do we ensure that those who need the greatest support can fulfil their real potential?  One of the answers is to support and inspire both the current and the next generation of educational leaders and managers, whilst ensuring that current inspectorate processes and mandate reflect the needs of learners and those responsible for management in the education system.

Like my party colleagues who tabled today's motion, I strongly believe that more needs to be done to improve leadership and management across all sectors, in particular post-primary, where the quality was not good enough in approximately 39% of schools inspected.  That does not come without many challenges.  All leaders face significant challenges in managing budgets and ensuring viability.  While trying to look after the interests of their organisations, they must ensure that money being spent gives added value to our learners.  They must be equipped to make sound, professional decisions, while ensuring that they have the foresight and ability to provide accountability and to support change.

Although the chief inspector's report highlights the issue of inadequate leadership and management, I find it difficult to accept that it takes almost three years to deal with an underachieving senior manager.  If a senior manager is unable to make the grade, procedures must support that person to improve but not to the extent that it puts learners, staff and their organisation at risk.  If you want to improve the level and capabilities of leadership and senior management, you must start by ensuring that those who are inadequate for the job are moved on.  That is met by creating a system in which leaders and staff are supported in their role and are appropriate for the role into which they move.

A recent report by PricewaterhouseCoopers showed that a number of anomalies were contributing to lower levels of management and leadership skills in the schooling system.  Some 57% of principals in Northern Ireland had not received formal leadership training prior to appointment.  Key reasons for not accessing that type of training while in post included availability, awareness of training and lack of time to undertake professional development.  Some 63% of teachers who had recently taken up a new leadership or management position felt that they had a lack of confidence in carrying out their role and had been parachuted into the job.  The report also highlighted the need to encourage younger professionals and females to come forward into leadership and management positions.  There was also the need to cut bureaucracy and administration and the worries about financial management and accountability, while striking a balance in personal life.  This issue was especially prevalent for principals who manage small schools and have to strike a balance between teaching and management time.  The report underpinned that, if we want to improve leadership and senior management skills in the education sector, we must be sure to challenge the stigma associated with leadership and management jobs, while ensuring that we break down the barriers preventing rounded professionals from coming into those roles.

As I stated at the beginning of my speech, we must take a holistic approach to the issue to ensure that we raise leadership and management skills and standards.  In doing so, it would be wrong not to consider our inspection process.  How can we be critical of teachers, leaders and senior managers if we do not ensure that the current inspection process is fit for purpose and question the position and status of the inspectorate as part of the Education Department?

In 2010, the ETI moved to a new risk-based approach to determine how often a school should be inspected.  I must say that I found it difficult to determine when the ETI finds a school or its pupils are at risk, and I strongly believe that the current approach stifles real leadership and management by prioritising compliance over innovation.  It also brings me on to ask whether the Education and Training Inspectorate should be independent.  Like other Members in the Chamber today, I believe that an independent inspectorate would have a stronger hand in holding government and the education services to account.  I also believe that, if we want to prioritise the improvement of leadership and middle management, having a fully independent organisation to monitor that will encourage the Department of Education and the Minister

Photo of John Dallat John Dallat Social Democratic and Labour Party

The Member's time is almost up.

Photo of Brenda Hale Brenda Hale DUP

— to tackle this growing concern.

I ask that the Minister of Education also consider the need to have the ETI as an independent organisation to be critical of government on the one hand, while making sure that it can ensure best practice for the needs of learners and leaders, free from departmental politics —

Photo of Brenda Hale Brenda Hale DUP

— and not being used as a private army.

Photo of Christopher Hazzard Christopher Hazzard Sinn Féin

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.  I support the motion.  The need for strong, innovative leadership in our education system has been clear for some time, and I am pleased that the DUP recognises that we need to implement various education reforms so that we can build the world-class system that it has talked about for so long.

Outstanding leadership has invariably emerged as a key characteristic of outstanding schools.  There can no longer be any doubt that those seeking quality education must ensure its presence and that the development of potential leaders must be given high priority.  It is said that, if you scratch the surface of an excellent school, you are likely to find an excellent leader; peer into a failing school, and you will find weak leadership.  To learn well, students need access to high-quality instruction and a well-crafted curriculum.  After that, they benefit most from the positive effects of strong school leadership.  Case studies of exceptional schools, particularly those that succeed beyond expectations, provide detailed portraits of leadership.  Large-scale quantitative studies of schooling conclude that the effects of leadership on student learning are small but educationally significant.  In these studies, as in case studies, leadership effects appear to be mostly indirect; that is, leaders influence student learning by helping to promote visions and goals and by ensuring that resources and processes are in place to enable teachers to teach well.

Efforts to improve educational leadership should build on the foundation of the well-documented and well-accepted knowledge about leadership that already exists.  We know that school leadership is most successful when it is focused on teaching and learning and that it is necessary but not sufficient for school improvement.  We understand that leadership can take different forms in different contexts.  We understand some of the mechanisms through which educational leadership has its effects.  We should promote strong, creative leadership that ultimately increases educational success for all.  Research suggests that, in the past, principals have been able to succeed, at least partially, by simply carrying out directives from central administrators.  Such management by principals is no longer enough to meet today's educational challenges.  Instead, principals must assume a greater leadership role.  Good leadership envisages goals, sets standards and communicates in such a way that all those directly or indirectly associated know where their school is going and what it means to the community. 

We all have a responsibility to show leadership when it comes to enhancing the educational outcomes of our young people.  Sinn Féin puts the spotlight on standards with its zero tolerance for the stagnant belief that, in previous years, we somehow had a world-class education system.   Various parties extolled that education system as world-class, yet thousands fell through the net.  Slowly but surely, we have broken down the toxic culture of toleration.  The discourse has changed, and today's motion symbolises such change in the mindset of most education commentators.  Sinn Féin set about the task of putting the child at the centre of our system.  No longer could we justify putting the needs of institutions ahead of those of our young people.

Photo of Jonathan Craig Jonathan Craig DUP

I thank the Member for giving way.  I listened with interest to what he had to say about the so-called failing system that we have.  If it is such a failing system, I need to remind the Member that his party has been in control of this failing system for the past five to 10 years.  To be honest, I sat through the previous Assembly mandate and listened to the wrong debate taking place in the Chamber time and time again.  While others fixated on the 11-plus, no Minister ever tackled the real issue: the one third of our education system that fails our children.  I am glad that the Minister has reversed that —

Photo of Christopher Hazzard Christopher Hazzard Sinn Féin

I will go on to my point that, during a recent six-hour debate on ESA and the need for reform in our schools, only one Member on the Benches opposite referred to Protestant working-class boys.  Those on that side of the House need to reflect on that.  Indeed, political unionism needs to ask serious questions of itself when it comes to showing leadership on educational reform.  In recent months, that has been particularly true of the Ulster Unionist Party.  I had a fair idea that there was something odd about UUP political analysts from the first debate that I attended in the House.  In April, Mr Kinahan was speaking to a motion calling for the establishment of a cross-departmental working group to explore ways in which Lough Neagh could be utilised in the best interests of the public when he said:

"I am concerned that hidden behind the motion is ... stealth towards a united Ireland ... driven by Marxist and communist philosophies." — [Official Report, Vol 74A, No 2, p48, col2].

Unfortunately for our young people, the UUP's McCarthyite double vision and contribution to education debate has been just as decrepit, as Mr Kinahan and his colleague Mrs Dobson have been unable to show political leadership on various education issues.  Instead, they have busied themselves with attempts to spread fear and confusion.  Despite calls during the summer from his party leader for legislation on ESA to be introduced, Mr Kinahan stood in the Chamber and described ESA legislation as:

"filled to the brim with hidden intentions". — [Official Report, Vol 78, No 3, p25, col1].

He also said that it was "chicanery" and a one-way stop to a united Ireland.  Just last week, Mrs Dobson spoke of her fears of hidden Sinn Féin agendas and that a support service for boards of governors would be a Sinn Féin-manipulated entity.   The UUP needs to get real and demonstrate that it is fit to show leadership and to work to improve educational outcomes for all our young people.

Similarly, when it comes to the SDLP's educational analysis, we once again see the strange case of Dr Jekyll and Mr HydeThe SDLP needs to stop riding two horses: it is either for or against academic selection, and it either wants to address education underachievement or it does not.  It can show leadership or continue to flounder — [Interruption.]

Photo of Christopher Hazzard Christopher Hazzard Sinn Féin

During an Adjournment debate on post-primary provision in my South Down constituency, the SDLP's education spokesperson asked the House whether all the things could be done in one school.

Photo of Christopher Hazzard Christopher Hazzard Sinn Féin

Yes, they can, in all-ability schools to meet the needs of all of our children.

Photo of John Dallat John Dallat Social Democratic and Labour Party

Time is up.  I remind Members to try to stay on the subject, otherwise you might get no marks.

Photo of Jo-Anne Dobson Jo-Anne Dobson UUP 12:00, 13 November 2012

How do you follow that?  I thank the Member who previously spoke for making all of my colleague's points again. 

No one in the Assembly will have failed to notice the banner headlines in October that pronounced failure and poor leadership in our schools.  We must first recognise the schools that have shown improvements and whose inspection reports showed strong leadership and vision.  Nevertheless, it is to the underperformance that the motion refers. 

The inspection reports were, indeed, critical of school leadership and raised many more serious concerns, but I am certain that, in many cases, principals would be prepared to concede that their inspection reports would improve were it not for the continual conveyor belt of conflicting policies and regulations coming to them from the Department.  Budgetary concerns, with schools continually asked to raise standards in a climate of falling budgets, are totally and wholly unsustainable.  Those concerns, coupled with, among many others, the need to respond to potentially far-reaching area planning proposals, can only lead to the deflection of the leadership roles within the schools. 

Our principals and teachers are highly dedicated to their roles and will always strive to do their absolute best for their school.  If, however, in the minority of cases, they fail to do so, that must be clearly illustrated in their inspection report, and swift action needs to be taken by the Department to help bring the school into line for the sake of the pupils and, indeed, the staff.  However, when the Department is directly responsible, who will bring it into line?  Principals being hampered by the Department when attempting to fulfil their aim can be directly linked to the inspection reports being debated here today.  If we were to turn the tables and ask principals to rate the leadership and performance of the Department, we would hear a damning verdict.  We would hear of the continual and unrelenting pressures being placed on the principals and boards of governors — pressures that, many believe, have gone past breaking point and are only set to increase in the coming months. 

It has been made clear many times in the Chamber that there is an urgent need to address the issue of underachievement among working-class Protestant boys, yet the chief inspector's report points out some disturbing statistics.  Only 32% of school leavers entitled to free school meals achieve GCSE grades A* to C in five subjects, including English and maths.  That is one of the reasons why the Ulster Unionist Party proposed a pupil bonus scheme, as announced by my party colleague Danny Kinahan at our party conference, through which schools would get additional money principally on the basis of the number of pupils who qualify for free school meals.

Photo of Mervyn Storey Mervyn Storey DUP

Will the Member give way?

Photo of Mervyn Storey Mervyn Storey DUP

I know that the Member has a question tabled for the Minister about the Dickson plan.  Will she outline how, from her perspective, working-class Protestant boys in the Craigavon area will be protected and provided for under the Dickson plan, given the current uncertainty that some schools within the Dickson plan are mooting in the local papers in her area?

Photo of Jo-Anne Dobson Jo-Anne Dobson UUP

I thank you.  That is a concern, but, as you know, I am continually fighting for all of the pupils of Upper Bann

I will go back to my speech.  Perhaps the Minister will explain what direct assistance his Department gives to schools, especially in areas where pupils struggle to attain basic English and maths skills. 

It is right and proper that schools undergo a rigorous inspection process, and, where deficiencies are found, they should be thoroughly and swiftly resolved.  However, the inspection process must take into account the full picture of the pressure under which school leaders find themselves.  The Department cannot, on one hand, call for higher standards and, on the other, provide principals and teachers with a much harsher climate in which to deliver that change.  If the Department expects inspection reports to improve in that climate, it must stand up and recognise its accountability when that fails to be the case.

Perhaps the Minister could take a look at the Department for Employment and Learning's track record.  Since the consolidation of the six regional further education colleges, we have heard that 80% of provision has been evaluated as being good or better.  The quality of teaching has been deemed good or better in 81% of cases.  Perhaps the Department of Education could learn lessons from the FE sector, which is, in general, performing well.

In conclusion, I echo the sentiments of many in the education profession when I say that it is the Department of Education that is failing our schools and, ultimately, our young people, not the other way around.  It is failing in its budgets and its policies and in providing the vision necessary to look towards a 21st century education system for the children of Northern Ireland.

The Department of Education has a responsibility to ensure the maintenance of public confidence in school management.  To do that, the public will need to have the confidence that the Department is ready, willing and able to do its part, not sitting idly by and leaving principals and staff to do all the heavy lifting.  Only then shall we stop reading banner headlines about poor leadership and failing schools.

Photo of Dominic Bradley Dominic Bradley Social Democratic and Labour Party

Tá áthas orm páirt a ghlacadh sa díospóireacht thábhachtach seo faoi thuairisc an chigire.  I am pleased to participate in the debate on the chief inspector's report and thank the Members opposite for tabling the motion.

There is no doubt that we have much to be proud of in our education system.  However, we are not in a position, nor should we ever be, to rest on our laurels.  The headlines coming out of the report, especially those to do with the quality of school leadership, are extremely alarming:  22% of primary schools and 39% of post-primary schools are characterised as being not good enough.

That is especially important when we consider that leadership and management are pivotal elements in ensuring that each and every child in our education system gets the maximum benefit from their time at school.  School principals and management need to promote a culture of continuous self-improvement among themselves at managerial level as well as among their staff in the classrooms.

I welcome the significant improvement of 10 percentage points that has been made in the leadership of primary schools, but there is still quite a bit of room for improvement there.  I hope that, in the two years before the next report is due, that gap will narrow even more.

The chief inspector notes that continuous self-evaluation is key to sustained improvement and that it needs to be robust and rigorous at all levels of management.  She says that the embedding of a culture of self-evaluation should become an inherent part of a school's work.  Mr Rogers mentioned that earlier.

The report states that the combination of self-evaluation with good use of data is seen as a key element in bringing about improvement across primary schools, post-primary schools and even FE colleges.  Successful schools are those that have embedded and combined critical self-evaluation and the relevant use of data.

Therefore, there is plenty of good practice in schools, but the question is whether it is being disseminated.  Poor performance requires early intervention, before a situation gets to an extent that it cannot be recovered.  It is not about statistics, although there are plenty of statistics in the report.  It is about children and their life chances.  In a situation in which 39% of post-primary leadership is not good enough, we have to look at our programmes for preparing teachers for leadership.

The Minister of Education made a statement to the Assembly last week in which he generalised quite a bit about what he intended to do to improve the situation, but we did not get much detail nor did we get a timescale.  We need more detail and more urgency.  Our children deserve the best, and they deserve it now.

There are structural issues that contribute to the difficulties.  Among those are the selective system and the nature of the schools estate.  In many cases, selection is draining non-selective schools of their best talent, with the result that some schools are left with an extremely challenging cohort but without the necessary role models to have a strong influence on raising achievement.

In the interim, the Minister should consider measures to deal with the leadership deficit.  He should review headship qualifications and other managerial qualifications; ensure that leaders and managements have the time to lead and manage; intensify the dissemination of good practice, of which there are plenty of examples; and use successful school leaders as mentors to a greater extent than is the case presently.  Such support and assistance is worthwhile and is proven to work.

The idea that a principal is immediately ready for any challenge when he or she is appointed needs to be questioned.  Continuous professional development is necessary for the classroom teacher, and it is also necessary for the principal.

Photo of John Dallat John Dallat Social Democratic and Labour Party

Will the Member bring his remarks to a close?

Photo of Dominic Bradley Dominic Bradley Social Democratic and Labour Party

As regards Mr Hazzard's points about the SDLP, he should remember —

Photo of Dominic Bradley Dominic Bradley Social Democratic and Labour Party

— that Ms Ruane claimed to have ended the 11-plus.  Yet, we still have tests.

Photo of Dominic Bradley Dominic Bradley Social Democratic and Labour Party

In fact, we have more tests now than we ever had before.

Photo of David McNarry David McNarry UKIP

When I read school inspection reports and the sensational headline that the quality of leadership and management is not good enough in many schools — 22% of primary schools and 39% of post-primary schools — I ask this simple question:  who inspects the inspectorate?  If the inspectorate is to be used as the tool to deliver the Minister's school rationalisation policy, we should know how well-qualified the inspectorate is for that task.  How much recent classroom experience has the inspectorate?  I ask that question because 21 of 59 inspectors have been appointed in the past five years, which indicates that 38 inspectors cannot have had either classroom or school management experience in the past five years.  So, almost two thirds of the inspectorate have experience that is five years out of date.  That is an issue that needs to be addressed.

I, like everyone in the House, am for better schools; schools that are rooted in, and relate to, their communities; schools where excellence is the norm; and schools that are housed in new, state-of-the-art buildings.  The decisions that shape the future of our schools must be evidence based.  We must know how valid the comments of those providing the evidence really are.  An expert witness in court must demonstrate his or her fitness to comment by showing how relevant and recent their qualifications and experience are.  Inspectors are like expert witnesses.  Much will be based on their conclusions.  Their recommendations will affect the lives of large numbers of teachers, principals and pupils.  Let us parade their credentials publicly for all to see and evaluate, so that we can have the confidence that we need to make widespread and far-reaching change.

The motion quite rightly calls on the Minister to:

"give greater leadership and ... increase confidence in the system of schools management."

Effectively, it could say that the Minister needs to increase confidence in his Department and call on schools management to follow that confidence.  We are dealing with underperformance all round.  The motion calls into question the qualities of some teachers.  That quality is left up in the air, which — like it or not — creates doubts in parents' minds about opportunities potentially being neglected and, therefore, impacting on their children.  This is not a good situation to be in.

Pointing the finger is all very well, but who is it being pointed at?  Are underperforming teachers new to the job or have they been in place long term?  Either way, how has the problem arisen?  How have poor teachers been appointed and how have poor teachers remained in position?  Parents would like answers to those questions because this clearly indicates that the system is unable, so far, to clear its own fault lines.  Just like the poor reporters and the poor managers being exposed in the BBC, parents have the right to know that poor teachers and poor school managers are not only being exposed but, as a result of this report, are being moved out and cleared out of the system and that that is being done as a matter of confidence.  After all, we are talking about standards.  If the standards are not met, they are failing the pupils.  That is a matter that we cannot stand over.  I welcome the report, and I support the motion.

Photo of John O'Dowd John O'Dowd Sinn Féin 12:15, 13 November 2012

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.  Tá mé tiomanta d’fheabhsú sna caighdeáin oideachais fud fad na hearnála oideachais.  I am committed to an improvement in educational standards across the whole education sector.  In all my Department's responsibilities and functions, my efforts and my Department's efforts are there to drive up standards. 

Today, we are debating the most recent chief inspector's report, and it is useful to set out what exactly the chief inspector said in that report.  The report is an analysis of the schools that were inspected.  It does not extrapolate the figures across our entire schools estate in any way, and Members should bear that in mind.  The chief inspector states that our education system provides good value but with too much variation and reports that 42% of the primary schools inspected are very good or outstanding and that a high proportion of teaching and learning is good or better in primary and special schools.  The report states that the proportion of school leavers achieving five GCSEs or equivalent has risen to 73% and that 80% of achievements in standards in the preschools inspected were good or better.  Over 80% of primary school leavers achieved the expected level in both English and maths; 82% and 83% respectively.  Through the school improvement policy, more robust action is being taken to follow up on inspection reports and ensure that schools receive the support that they require to address areas of improvement and achieve the best possible outcomes.  The report states that 81% of schools that were inspected have improved by at least one performance level in follow-up inspections and that, in 82% of primary schools and just over 76% of post-primary schools, lessons observed were evaluated as good or better. 

There are also negatives.  The chief inspector states that our education system provides good value but with too much variation.  There is a need to improve the outcomes in literacy and numeracy at Key Stage 2 and GCSE English and mathematics, particularly for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds.  Improvement in the quality of leadership and management is required across the phases.  In around 39% of post-primary schools inspected and 22% of primary schools inspected, the standard was evaluated as not good enough.  Leadership development is fragmented and does not respond quickly or effectively enough to the changing needs of our education system, a point that I touched on in my most recent statement to the Assembly in response to the education report.  This area does need improvement.  My Department acknowledges that, and we will be improving upon it. 

There is a need to improve the effectiveness of the boards of governors.  In 20% of primary schools and 30% of post-primary schools —

Photo of John Dallat John Dallat Social Democratic and Labour Party

Order, please.  The Minister will resume his seat.  I ask Members to please refrain from conversation when the Minister is making his speech.

Photo of John O'Dowd John O'Dowd Sinn Féin

— transitional arrangements for children and young people between organisations at key stages need a stronger focus to ensure no regression.  Post-primary schools are not as successful at exiting formal intervention as their primary school counterparts, and use of ICT needs improving in 50% of post-primary schools.

That sets out a picture of where areas have improved and where we require challenges to improve those.  I listened intently to Members speak during the debate, and there have been some informed contributions that require further analysis and study.  Some contributions have no basis whatsoever.  I ask Members to reflect on and, indeed, study the motion that they are being asked to vote on because some of them appear to be voting on a different motion.  The final section of the motion reads:

"and calls on the Minister of Education to give greater leadership"

— I have no difficulty with that challenge —

"and to introduce more stringent measures to increase confidence in the system of schools management."

It is not to introduce more stringent measures to increase the confidence of school managers but to increase confidence:

"in the system of schools management."

The dictionary definition of stringent is:  "strict, precise and exacting".  I take from that that the motion calls on me to introduce more robust policies to give the public and the Assembly more confidence in schools management.  Perhaps I read the motion wrongly.  Some Members seemed to be asking me, as Minister, to introduce more stringent measures to increase confidence in something else.  Members should read the motion.

Members across the Chamber stood up and criticised me — quite rightly; I am open to criticism and challenge.  Members are quite right to do so; that is their role.  They criticised policies and budgets, which is fair enough.  However, the vast majority of our schools and people in leadership positions are doing well or improving.  They work under the same circumstances as everyone else.  So why do we still have questions about the leadership in some schools, and why do we still have poor teaching?  That cannot be blamed entirely on the Minister of Education of the day or the Department of Education.  I have a responsibility that I take very seriously.  Every policy proposal that I bring forward is targeted at improving educational outcomes for young people.  However, Members will have to accept that, every now and again, the fault lies with an individual in a classroom, in a principal's office or around a board of governors' table.  Those individuals have to be held to account.

Mrs Dobson asked who holds the Minister to account.  It is her job to hold me to account.  She, along with 106 MLAs, the Education Committee, the media and, ultimately, the electorate holds me to account.  I am rightly held to account.  So why should we not have an inspection system that holds our schools to account?  We entrust our young people to our education system and schools.  We allow those institutions to help to shape those young people for the future.  Thankfully, the vast majority of our teachers and school leaders provide them with that chance in life.

Perhaps it is an electoral ploy, and Members do not want to criticise teachers because teachers have a vote.  However, are Members — on the Ulster Unionist Party Benches, in particular — seriously suggesting that there is no such thing as a bad teacher or a bad leader?  Of course there is.  I will tell you who is most critical of poor leadership and teaching:  fellow leaders and fellow teachers.  When I am out and about in schools, talking to professionals on the ground, it is constantly raised with me that we need a more robust system to deal with failing teachers and leaders.

Brenda Hale's speech, in fairness to her, requires further study and analysis.  It raised a number of interesting points as to how we can tackle those matters.  She referred to a PricewaterhouseCoopers report that requires further analysis.  We need to know why younger people, in particular, are not coming forward for leadership positions.  What are the barriers in their way?  Why can we not get the best and the brightest to come forward for school leadership positions?  If there are barriers in their way, let us remove them.  You are not giving any benefit to the Minister or the Department, but by denying that there is a small minority of poor teachers and leaders, you are letting down the young people under their charge and denying those young people's rights to a good and proper education system.  That is a challenge for us all.

As regards policies on the way forward and how we deal with these matters, every policy that I bring forward is about raising educational attainment.  As the inspector's report states, we are improving and getting better.  However, we are not getting there quickly enough.  We are not achieving the outcomes that young people deserve quickly enough, and I have no difficulty in continuing to examine different ways to go forward.  As was said, I have introduced OECD.  It will come into our education system, and its terms of reference will be made known to the Education Committee.  I have no doubt that it will engage with the Education Committee and with individual Members.  OECD is coming in to examine our education system in its totality, and it will present challenges to us all.  The question was asked:  what if OECD comes in and refers to academic selection as the best thing ever or refers to the number of policies that different parties have?  That is the challenge for us all and the big question that we will all have to face. 

As I set out in my previous statement, I want to bring in OECD to examine our education system because I believe that we are far too insular, that we need to internationalise our education debate and that we need to learn from the best.  Let the OECD come in, do its job and report.  Then, let us, as an Assembly and as a society, analyse its responses. 

The leadership programmes in place are good but could be better.  We have had difficulty in identifying potential leaders early, bringing them through the system and ensuring that they have enough confidence in themselves and the system to move forward and apply for leadership positions  Mr Bradley challenged me on the fact that my speech was light on detail.  I want to analyse potential programmes further before I give details.  However, we acknowledge that the leadership programmes need to be improved.  The proof of the reading is in the inspector's report.

I also put out a challenge on our negotiating machinery.  Again, this comes from a challenge placed on me by teachers and school leaders and, again, Mrs Hale referred to that in her speech.  It can take up to three years before a final conclusion on the future of poor performing teachers and leaders is reached.  That is far too long, and the machinery involved is too cumbersome.  We do not assist the teacher or leader under focus by having that long, drawn-out system, and we certainly do not help the cohort of young people under the responsibility of that teacher or leader during that time.  However, negotiations between the trade unions and employers will be required to improve that.  My message is quite simple:  those negotiations need to come to a conclusion sooner rather than later for the benefit of teachers, school leaders and pupils as we move into the future.

Members, there is no easy solution to any of these matters.  Mr Craig, who opened the debate, referred to the fact that a lot of responsibilities fall on boards of governors who are voluntary and part-time.  I have acknowledged the important role that they play in education many, many times in the Chamber.  However, that is where the current legislation states that the responsibility lies.  Time and time again in the Chamber, Members from across the different Benches insisted that we allow the autonomy of boards of governors to remain, and I have never challenged that — it should remain.  However, we have to ensure that boards of governors are empowered or given the training or support to make the difficult decisions that they have to make on human resource issues in those schools.  Decisions on personnel are never easy.  Regardless of the size of the business you may be involved in, dealing with personnel matters is the most difficult issue.  However, we have to ensure that boards of governors have the ability to do that.  I have set in motion training and support for our boards of governors, backed up with financial support, and they will have to make such decisions.  The new ESA body will be in place to ensure that they are backed up in such matters.     

In conclusion, I acknowledge that our school system has to deal with one of the most difficult budgets in modern education history.  I have never said that the education budget was the right budget to deliver our education system.  However, when I look at the performances across our schools estate; when I see schools, including those in socially deprived areas, achieving excellent results and producing well-rounded and well-informed young school leavers who value themselves and others around them; and when I see those who give leadership in the principal's office and in the classroom, I know that we simply cannot turn round and say that the budget is bad, therefore the results will be bad.  The two do not necessarily equate.  The previous inspection report from two years ago was carried out at a time when education was relatively well financed, and there were similar findings then.  It is, therefore, not simply budgetary.

We are talking about the need to improve leadership.  I accept my role in that as Minister, but we are also talking about leadership in the principal's office and around the table of the board of governors, and from our Members and our community.  It may be uncomfortable for Members to hear this, but we have to accept that, occasionally, we have bad teachers and bad leaders.  We have to put mechanisms in place to deal with that matter more effectively and efficiently than we do currently.

Photo of Mervyn Storey Mervyn Storey DUP 12:30, 13 November 2012

At the outset, I thank all Members who took part in the debate.  I thank them for the support that they are going to give to the motion and for the contributions that have been made.  I will not bore you by repeating them, but, in the course of my comments, I may refer to them.  I also thank the Minister for being in attendance and for the contribution that he has made to the debate.

We welcome the opportunity to have in the House a debate that notes the inspectorate's report.  The inspectorate's report is always very important in giving us an overview and assessment of our education system.  There is much to celebrate within our system, despite the confusing and conflicting messages that come from the Sinn Féin spokesperson on education.  I will come back to his comments later.

There is much to celebrate in our education system.  There is something that we need to do, but I think that the House is the classic example of how you do not do it.  We have an inherent inability to talk something up, but we always seem to be capable of talking it down.  Every party in the House does it, and members of my party are not exempt.  If we find that the opposition says something, we will always make sure that we find something critical to say about it.  That seems to be the nature of the beast that we have created here.  I think we need to stay relatively within the realm of facts and of what is the case.  We welcome the fact that the statistics from the report highlight that over 75% of the institutions inspected, in all sectors, are in the good or the better category.  That is to be welcomed.  If political parties were being assessed by the inspectorate, I doubt whether some in the House would ever come anywhere near the 75% mark.  However, the electorate has made its choice on that one.

I come now to children from disadvantaged areas and the community that continues to underperform against the current benchmark of five GCSEs.  It has to be said that, despite a decade of control by the Minister's party, a period in which we have had much of the rhetoric and repeats of the same mantras, we still have a situation in which only 32% of children leave school with five GCSEs.  The initiatives that seem to deliver are often discredited or starved of funds.

That brings me to an issue around initiatives.  Schools are tired of initiatives.  We had a circular from the Department — I think it was from 1993 — that called for less bureaucracy in our system.  There has been more bureaucracy in our system since that circular was sent out to our schools than we have had in the history of our education system.  We have to recognise that we desperately need to free our teachers to allow them to do what they were employed to do, and that is to teach in the classroom.  Last week, I spent some time in schools.  I will be honest and say that it is depressing to see the number of forms, reports, assessments and various documents that teachers have to fill in.  By the way, they also have to teach in the classroom.

The inspectorate report referred to ICT in our schools.  That is a very concerning issue.  Considering the significant investment that we have made in ICT, to have 50% of schools in the "less than good" category for their use of ICT is very worrying.  Between 2000 and 2011, £470 million was spent, and I am not even going to include the figure for Northern Ireland literacy assessments (NILAs) and Northern Ireland numeracy assessments (NINAs), because we know the ongoing crisis around those.  However, the teachers are not to blame for that.  Let us be very clear:  the teachers are not to blame.  It was a badly thought-out process.  A bad set of arrangements was put in place to bring in the contracts, and we moved from one contract to two contracts.  I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but let me say that, three years down the road, we will be in the same place, because the contracts will probably be mismanaged by the Department.  Perhaps we will have four contracts by that time, and the system —

Photo of John O'Dowd John O'Dowd Sinn Féin

In three years' time, the Member may be the Minister of Education.  Is he predicting that he is going to mismanage the contracts?

Photo of Mervyn Storey Mervyn Storey DUP

I am just hedging my bets.

We need initiatives that can clearly deliver.  Does anybody really have any confidence?  Whether or not we in the House have any confidence, do teachers have confidence?  Let us ask the people who are delivering in the system.  That is the issue.  That is why the motion talks about confidence.  We have to have confidence in those who are leaders, but our leaders have to have confidence that there is a system in which they can participate.

A significant number of schools appear to demonstrate failing in leadership and management, yet there has been huge investment in leadership training and almost 2,000 staff are now accredited with the school leadership qualification, as was referred to by Mr Rogers.  However, we still have coming to the Education Committee this week a paper on the school workforce review.  When was that initiative announced?  In 2008.  What does the Department have to tell us on that very important initiative?  It is anticipated that the review will be completed by 31 March — wait for it, and hold on to your seat — 2013.  From 2008 to 2013.  Please, let us have some reality in the way in which initiatives are brought to our schools and commented on by the inspectorate.

What about the Curriculum Advisory and Support Service (CASS)?  The report highlights the need for CASS to be more flexible in its support for newly qualified teachers and calls for more training and support for teachers, at a time, as some Members said, when CASS has been decimated through the introduction of a vacancy control policy.  From 2006 until now, I have repeatedly highlighted that in the House.  Some people will probably say that I am a cynic on the issue, but why was vacancy control introduced?  It was an attempt to force us all into accepting an ESA.  That is not the best way in which to do policy.  A few weeks ago, the Minister admitted in the House that that will probably be looked at when ESA is brought into existence.  I have said in the House, as he knows, that the first thing that ESA will have to do is employ more staff.  Why?  Because we have cut and cut and cut away, and the support mechanisms for our schools and teachers are not there in the way in which they should be.  We need to look seriously at CASS. [Interruption.] Does the Member want to intervene?  Go ahead.

Photo of Trevor Lunn Trevor Lunn Alliance

I am glad to hear the Chairman mention ESA.  Does that mean that his party has now withdrawn its opposition to ESA and will give it a fair wind?

Photo of Mervyn Storey Mervyn Storey DUP

Perhaps I am in a different House from the Member, but I do think that the legislation has had its Second Stage and is coming to the Committee for consideration.  I am quite open to scrutiny of ESA, as we scrutinise the Bill over the next number of weeks.

On improving the efficiency and effectiveness of boards of governors, the report highlights the fact that 20% of primary schools and 34% of post-primary schools have issues with boards of governors.  If that is the case, why is it that an element of governors out there, particularly those in the voluntary grammar sector, is very concerned about the way in which governors are being treated by the Bill that the Member referred to?  Yet, the way in which they have organised their board of governors is an example as to the way in which they deliver for their particular schools.  Irrespective of what you think of assessment, irrespective of what you think of the transfer debate, there are a number of schools in the maintained sector and in the non-denominational sector that have been very good at putting together boards of governors who are very capable of giving exceptionally good leadership to their schools.  That should not be put in the bin and ignored; it should be recognised. 

The Programme for Government sets 49% for the target of five GCSEs for disadvantaged groups by 2014-15.  At present, we only have 32%.

Photo of John Dallat John Dallat Social Democratic and Labour Party

Will the Member bring his remarks to a close, please.

Photo of Mervyn Storey Mervyn Storey DUP

The report highlights the good outcomes of, for example, Achieving Belfast and Achieving Londonderry, yet the Minister has told this House that he has no plans to introduce similar programmes elsewhere.

Photo of Mervyn Storey Mervyn Storey DUP

Let us use good practice, and let us use initiatives that work.  I support the motion and thank Members for their contributions.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly acknowledges the recent report by the chief inspector of schools into the leadership and management of schools in Northern Ireland; notes, with concern, the underperformance of some managers and teachers; and calls on the Minister of Education to give greater leadership and to introduce more stringent measures to increase confidence in the system of schools management.

The sitting was suspended at 12.41 pm.

On resuming (Mr Principal Deputy Speaker [Mr Molloy] in the Chair) —