Friday, December 07, 2007
From 11+ into the void…
The sheer lack of detail is one of the most frustrating aspects of any policy discussion on education. But over at the Daily Telegraph Jenny McCartney warns that the frightening thing about the abolition of the 11+ is not its going but the fact that there is nothing concrete in Catriona Ruane’s proposals to take its place.
Update: Bob Wilson explains how he believes the whole thing is a ‘policy free’ attempt to wind up unionists over at the Conservatives NI site.
Mick Fealty @ 12:39 PM
why do you need something to take its place?
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 01:09 PMLet’s not get too exercised about a sub-optimal ministers’ left leaning wish list. She knows that the required legislation cannot pass (I note there is no date for a Bill). I also suspect she knows that her performance to date (eg. attending meetings with teacher reps without pen, paper or any interest in note taking, confiding to head teachers that her daughter had the occasional “shite” day at school) means her time around the Executive table is limited. The performance on Tuesday had more to do with her future reputation on the back benches than the future education of our children.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 01:12 PMheck
because the only the test not academic selection has been abolished.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 01:14 PMsaw her on hearts and minds and the lack of any plans was deeply worrying. she must have talked about ‘imagination’ about 5 or 6 times when asked about what sort of system would replace the 11+. misty eyed dreaming of some better system if only people had the imagination… blah blah blah. its just a lot of waffle.
it seemed a bit like big Gerrys roasting on RTE during the election campaign when he couldnt give any substance beyond saying ‘equality’ alot.
never mind what your constitutional politics are, when you see the minister in charge of an important government department like education just give a load of clichés and vague phrases, it has to give you that sinking feeling in your stomach. it generates an opinion that the person is not up to the job and things are about to go badly wrong.
noel - “so, what is your replacement idea for the 11+”
catriona - “if we can all use our imagination...”
WTF ? !
glad i dont have kids....
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 01:20 PMWhilst there was one concrete suggestion to sell off the ministerial land back, that ‘i’ word was the major stick the SF backbenchers used to beat Margaret Ritchie’s objection to her ministerial budget cut with.
It is a poor stand in for a rationally thought through argument. You suspect any competition over this issue will be an uneven contest, and not simply in terms of votes counted at the end of the day.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 01:27 PMI have to agree with those who back the Craigavon system. Academic selection at 14 makes more sense. No academic selection at all makes no sense.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 01:34 PMEleven plus scrapped. Pupils/Parents select their preferred next school. Geography/DIstance from school being the first selection criteria.
What’s so tough to understand?
I’m with heck why does something need to take it’s place?
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 01:42 PMGram,
Its actually quite tough to understand why a so-called ‘socialist’ Minister would want to bring forward a system which would select pupils on the basis of the ability of their parents to move close to a good school. Financial and social selection can hardly be described as better than a system which allows people to be judged on their ability, leaving all social aspects out of it.Her oul twaddle about a “world class school in every neighbourhood” doesn’t stand any scrutiny. Every country, every area has some schools which are at the very least perceived to be be better than others, and in all reality some schools will always be better than others. You therefore move to a position where the ability of your parents to buy a certain house gets you a step up.
Wonder why her agriculture minister colleague who is so interested in rural development hasn’t pointed out that it also puts rural children at an immediate disadvantage.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 01:49 PMgram
because public opinion supports academic selection, academic selection has been preserved by statute so an alternative means of academic selection is required.
There’s also the fact that the minister cannot get her proposals through the Assembly.
I wonder what all the bourgeoise SDLP voters think about this weeks’ debate? For rexample, I don’t detect any desire for Lumen Christi to become Brandywell Comp in order to pander to some form of pan nationalism.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 01:49 PMgram - then housing nearest the good schools rises in price so only the richest can afford a decent education. Social mobility is reduced and we educate the richest not the brightest.
Whats so tough to understand about that ?
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 01:52 PMgram - “Eleven plus scrapped. Pupils/Parents select their preferred next school. Geography/DIstance from school being the first selection criteria. What’s so tough to understand?”
The problem with no academic selection at all is that you get a house price bubble near all the good schools. So the rich buy the houses and the poor don’t get a look-in. That’s what has happened in England.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 01:54 PMgram,
Well, is it a ban on academic selection? Or is it just a rescinding of the 11+? Martin McGuinness originally posed these as two separate questions. No brainer on the
firstsecond. But there is a majority against thesecondfirst.Tony Gallagher, Finbarr McCallion and Simon Doyle kicked this around usefully on the Stratagem Policy Panel on Education (bear with the uneven sound quality) before the last election.
McCallion points out the problem of the postcode lottery that comes from making geography/distance the chief criteria. Not least the outflow effect to the private sector that followed the implementation of the Plowden Report in Britain in the 60s.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 02:09 PMAnybody have any idea how the transition to post primary works elsewhere (the south, Sweeden, Finland etc.?) and what implications this has had for social mobility, ‘Postcode lottery’ etc.?
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 02:16 PMSorry, should have qualified. I ask, and mention those countries specifically, as they have a reputation (valid or not) for providing a good education system, do they use any form of selection.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 02:23 PM>>gram - then housing nearest the good schools rises in price so only the richest can afford a decent education. Social mobility is reduced and we educate the richest not the brightest.<<
If “bad” schools develop now or in the future then that’s a separate issue I’m afraid and the department of education should be making steps to ensure they improve.
Not so sure that many bad schools exist. They only appear “bad” because they are forced to take pupils who fail the 11+ exam.
To ensure equality the DOE should also ensure that any barriers to entry, e.g. school fees, are not imposed by schools.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 02:29 PMI just left this question for Big Ulsterman but it’ll do just as well here.
The allocation of 11+ grades is designed to separate children into populations of relative intelligence, not absolute. So 25% get A’s, 10% B’s (5% each B+ and B-), 10% C’s and 55% D’s.
As spare capacity has grown in the Grammar school system these schools have been permitted to allow entry to an increasing number of children so that North Down Grammars are now accepting kids with C’s (including Sullivan - see their admissions pages).
If you believe that Grammars should offer a distinctly different education to the most gifted then surely you need to argue that they should be permitted to accept only those with (as they used to) A’s. If so do you accept the consequent closure of “redundant” Grammars and the concentration of super-academic schools in centralized hot-houses?
If, on the other hand, you believe that Grammars should accept an increasing number of the lower quartiles where they have space (and they clearly do) do you also accept that they need to offer a diversity of education within them so as not to apply a “one size fits all” solution to the children they take in?
In other words you either close Grammars or you force them to offer only vocational / technical courses + abreiviated general education to some streams. Once you’ve done that you may as well allow the Grammars to adopt High Schools or open their own internal technical schools or departments.
I see no threat in Bangor Grammar opening a technical school or St Columbanus (catholic high) a Grammar School, perhaps in their own blocks, perhaps on a separate Campus (Bangor could use Glenlola next door to the Tech if we got rid of our sexual hang-ups too). The presence of a choice of facilites within the one school seems the most sensible way to deal with demographic change and local Grammar School education provision without having to resort to what’s being called a one-size-fits-all approach.
I’ll make this yet easier. We can and (being small and wanting to give our kids the best opportunities) should buy our qualifications in from the international best. I would seriously consider the BTEC/General Ed combinations in the new English Diplomas in the Technolgy Schools and the International Baccalaurate in the Grammar School. That provides a positive and win either way choice.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 02:32 PM“McCallion points out the problem of the postcode lottery that comes from making geography/distance the chief criteria. Not least the outflow effect to the private sector that followed the implementation of the Plowden Report in Britain in the 60s.”
Just scanned that Muck as I have to be off soon - but it seems entirely incidental to the question of selection. If anything, the 11+ corrupts the whole process as it forces education to be about an exam syllabus for 2 years. Still, I suppose that is good preparation for modern education at GCSE, A Level and Degree level.
While we’re on the point of restrictive syllabus - I always wondered if moving to Leaving Certs (normally finished in the South by 17) but maintaining the requirement of leaving at 18 would be a good idea. It would give a years worth of time to broaden education, but still get exams recognised by all the unis in the UK and Ireland.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 02:38 PM>>Well, is it a ban on academic selection? Or is it just a rescinding of the 11+? Martin McGuinness originally posed these as two separate questions. No brainer on the first. But there is a majority against the second.<<
What stats are you using to say that a majority are infavour of retaining the 11+?
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 02:39 PM“I wonder what all the bourgeoise SDLP voters think about this weeks’ debate?”
I couldn’t begin to speculate, Bonar, but I suspect that they would be horrified at your misspelling of bourgeois ( and even more horrified if they even suspected that you had used a noun where an adjective was appropriate).
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 02:39 PMThe 11+ was the void and it illustrates the poverty of education of those who, no doubt, may have benefited from academic selection at 11 that they’re so afraid of the word/concept, imagination.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 02:47 PMMichael, you asked what happens in the South. A key factor is the fact that there are almost 60 fee paying secondary schools in the South; they take the “cream”, particularly in Dublin. Some areas operate what’s called a deanery system where schools group and you apply to the group, listing your preferences in order, the risk being, if you don’t get your firest preference you may then drop to your third or fourth. Admission policy tends to be a confused mess of geography, specific feeder primary schools, age, siblings, religion - everything but academic. And then once in they do a test and stream and create mini grammars within the school of children who will do higher level exams. It’s not the worst system but no fairer than the 11 plus.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 02:55 PMI attended two NI Grammar Schools and neither was particularly strong on imagination. Rugby football and Exam passes were the only priority.
Neither had so much as an economics A level. Far too social sciency.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 02:58 PMKen,
It all corrupts in the sense that it each policy option brings about different outcomes. That’s why the missing detail renders the announcement almost meaningless. The social mobility argument is not to be sniffed at, since comparatively speaking the comprehensive system in the Republic leads to greater differentials between performances by students defined by class than in Northern Ireland.
Indeed, the lower you go in class, the more open Northern Ireland becomes, and the more closed the Republic becomes, at least according to figures in Richard Breen and Christopher Whelan’s 1999 paper ‘Social Mobility in Ireland: A Comparative Analysis’. The difference is much more pronounced amongst women than men.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 03:04 PMAs Bonar Law has pointed out the discussion is all a tad irrelevant as there is no chance of Ms Ruane’s vision coming into effect.
I’ve explained in detail why not at:
http://www.conservativesni.comPosted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 03:10 PMBob, will attach to the above.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 03:11 PM
