Thursday, February 01, 2007
NI education qualifiers bumping along the UK bottom…
Really interesting piece of research on educational achievement and its relation to individual economic success in Northern Ireland by Vani K. Borooah at the University of Ulster. In the introduction he notes that, “Based on a survey of 97 studies that estimated returns to education, Ashenfelter et. al. (1999) concluded that the return to an additional years schooling was between 6 and 9 percent”. Now we do extremely well compared to the rest of the UK when it comes to high individual educational achievement, but considerably less well when it comes of overall achievement as a proportion of the population - top and bottom!
Well:
Approximately, 30 percent of the respondents in the North East, the North West, the East and West Midlands, Wales, and Scotland had no qualifications compared to around 22 percent for the East, the South East, the South West, and inner and outer London. Of all the regions of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland had the highest proportion of respondents (38 percent) with no qualifications.
And at the other end of the scale:
At the other end of the qualifications spectrum, 44 percent of respondents in inner London, 31 percent in outer London, and 27 percent in the South East had Level 4 qualifications. At the other extreme, only 18 percent of respondents in Northern Ireland and in the North East had level 4 qualifications. In the other regions the proportion of respondents with Level 4 qualifications was fairly equal at approximately 21 percent.
Now for the sectarian headcount thing. And it’s not quite as you might expect:
While there was no significant difference between the proportions of Catholics and Protestant respondents, taken in their entirety (i.e. 16-74), without any qualifications, the proportion of Catholic respondents without any qualifications was significantly higher than that for Protestants for the truncated age groups, 16-45 and 16-30 years.
However, at the other end of the qualifications spectrum, the proportion of Catholic respondents with Level 4 qualifications was significantly higher than that for Protestants for all the age groups: 16-74, 16-45, and 16-30 years. Compared to Protestants, Catholics were more likely to be without qualifications but also more likely to have the highest level of qualifications.
Protestants seem to have a more even spread of achievement, whereas there is quite a (class based?) spread amongst Catholics. On the face of it, you might use these findings to argue that Catholics both benefit from selective education and are simultaneously penalised by it. But, he adds an important caveat:
The empirical evidence tends to suggest that a higher proportion of Protestants migrate to Great Britain (GB) for HE purposes with a significant proportion not returning. This seems a strong explanatory factor in explaining the finding that Catholics have the highest levels of qualification.
But there is no such caveat for the most striking finding at the lower end Catholic performance, which significantly contradicts previous research:
The finding that the number of Catholics without any qualifications is significantly higher than for Protestants is particularly interesting and would tend to be contrary to what previous research has shown, particularly work which Professor Bob Osborne has previously undertaken.
Mick Fealty @ 09:35 AM
John of East
There is no reason why streaming and selection cannot occur within the school - eg as in Campbell College.
For that to happen effectively would require larger schools and an end to the various parallel systems. Also I am not sure that the English comprehensive model is one that we should blindly follow.
You know my views by now the priority should be more resources on Nursery and Primary education in areas of low attainment. You need to supplement the skills of the parents if the children are to get an even break. Children learn from those around them if the resources are limited the skills they develop will be equally limited.
Posted by on Feb 01, 2007 @ 02:13 PMthe English experience suggests that if you break down from Grammar to Comp, there are certain things you lose, and which are difficult to compensate for.
Ok, but the question then arises as to whether the English experience -given the gap in time, the differently structured societies, differences in industry etc- allows for a telling comparison.
There is a temptation to view the altering of macro educational policies as an easy way to combat all society’s ills. In truth there are multiple ills within education and its longer term relation to the workforce which probably require a range of smaller, smarter approaches.
No doubt this is true, but I don’t consider selection to be a macro-educational policy per se. With or without selection, you are still going to have children studying the same subjects for entry to the workforce. At a macro-level then, what gets studied becomes more important than who does the studying. At the human level, we ought to be concerned with equality of opportunity.
It would be hard to do this without looking at the question of selection in the present system: whom does it benefit, and whom does it not? If it adversely impacts children from lower incomes -and the fact that only 7% of grammar school children are on free school meals as compared with the non-grammar school average of 28% would suggest that it does- then the fundamental question is how to address this.
Posted by on Feb 01, 2007 @ 02:32 PMSurely there is with low numbers at the top, however?
Not if lots of the top achievers leave NI at 18 or 22. Lots do. That’s something wrong with our economy and society, not our education system.
I imagine this would entail some sort of comparison between the top 25-30% of academic achievers in both regions.
It’s even simpler than that. Northern Ireland exam results are significantly better even though Northern Ireland exams are generally acknowledged to be harder (not by much). Also, the UU admits the highest proportion of working-class students in the UK by far (close to 40%), and with the University of Paisley (no kidding) second, QUB comes third. In fact, the proportion of working-class students at Queen’s is, from memory, more than twice that in the next best performing Russell Group university.
And, going back to my original point social differences in achievement are already apparent among 5 year olds. The 11+ is not the cause of the problem; getting rid of it will not, therefore, be the solution to the problem.
Working-class boys do apallingly badly at school in Scotland and England, and anecdotally I would suggest in the Republic as well. Do not chuck out the baby with the bathwater folks!
Let us all be honest - it is social selection
Not for me it wasn’t. It got me away from a housing executive estate Primary School where I was constantly bullied and got me off to a grammar school (the same one that kensei went to) where being clever and liking reading didn’t make you a freak. If the 11+ goes, the middle-classes will have cosy suburban comprehensives to retreat to. The working classes will be left to like or lump what is left.
Posted by on Feb 01, 2007 @ 02:50 PMThere are quite a lot of comments above.
John
Don’t confuse the 11+ exam which is the mechanism currently used and the principle of selection. I agree the 11+ exam is hardly perfect and yes, I have put two through it with one more to go.
Hugh / Kensei
The comparison is NI grammars vs GB grammars.
John
NI experiences more social mobility within its grammars than anywhere else and we have a beeter social mix going on to university than the rest of GB.
At the mo grammars select those with academic aptitude from all areas. Scrap selection and grammars (ep in the heavier populated areas) will only be able to draw from the immediate surroundings. House prices will dictate admission (as per GB) thus drawbridges are effectivley being dran up (ref John’s gob shite and snobs comments above!)
Finally, the architect of going comprehensive in GB admits it was a mistake.
I fully admit there is a lot to do but I jst 100% believe scrapping selection is just wrong and takes us several steps back which we will regret. Instead of espousing some educational utopia, perhaps we should be a bit more pragmatic and actually learn from the English experience - if they regret what has happend why are we in a rush to copy them????Regards all
Posted by on Feb 01, 2007 @ 03:13 PMSammy Morse
social differences in achievement are already apparent among 5 year olds.
Addressing that is the real problem in education.
Posted by on Feb 01, 2007 @ 03:24 PMThe issue here is nothing to do with either the kids or with the 11+. The problem is the parents and how we instill our fears and bias onto our kids. My kids don’t fear the 11+ - they see it as an opportunity. The 11+ is stressful but the earlier we train our kids to deal with the harsh realities of life then the more capable they will be. Stop using the 11+ as the root of all evil, because if it is abolished you will have to find something else to blame.
Posted by on Feb 01, 2007 @ 03:32 PM‘perhaps we should be a bit more pragmatic and actually learn from the English experience - if they regret what has happend why are we in a rush to copy them????’
Perhaps we might do better to look further afield, i.e. at countries with rather better rates of literacy…
I’m reminded here of a claim made on a previous thread to the effect that NI had a ‘world-class’ educational system because Belfast was producing results comparable (rather worse it turned out) to several British cities…
Blinkers off folks!
Posted by on Feb 01, 2007 @ 03:39 PMHmm…
Some examples would be useful?
Posted by on Feb 01, 2007 @ 03:41 PMOECD statistics should be available here: http://213.253.134.43/oecd/pdfs/browseit/8100051E.PDF
looks like our European neighbours are doing things rather better than we are… Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Sweden all have fewer people at the lowest level of literacy.
Go figure…
Posted by on Feb 01, 2007 @ 04:06 PMQuite a lot of Germany has selective education - pretty much all of the South and West IIRC.
Posted by on Feb 01, 2007 @ 04:24 PMGermany does surely. I’m a bit shady on the Netherlands, but Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden have interesting variations on comprehensive education. Most of them don’t require their kids to enter mainstream education as early as Britain and Ireland.
Although Denmark in particular allows students to opt for fairly specialist forms of education after 16 (IIRC).
There has also been a long tradition in Sweden for older older people to return to full time education through it’s semi private Folk High School system.
Posted by on Feb 01, 2007 @ 05:57 PMThe endless wrangle about the 11+ has distracted from focus on the real problem in education which is the poor outcomes from secondary schools.
We know how to do a good job for our academically inclined children but only do a mediocre to bad one for the rest. There is little sense in streaming children at 11 but then expecting both streams to follow the same curriculum.
By giving the secondary schools the right to follow a different curriculum there should be a much better chance that they can find the means to a motivate the academically disinclined in other directions, whilst also focussing on the basics for those who have fallen behind.Posted by on Feb 01, 2007 @ 11:32 PMI agree with Sammy - the 11+ gave me an opportunity.
I think the whingeing about the 11+ comes from a sense of jealousy more than anything else, my brother failed it and he is earning as much as me as a joiner, power to him.Why is it that some people think that we must all be academic equals or near equals?
Society needs everyone from a brain surgeon to a labourer - and all are of equal value.
What I would want is for all to have the opportunity to receive an education commensurate with their abilities.
I think we are hung up on exam results - the primary objective of education surely is the broadening of the mind - not qualifying someone for a job
Posted by on Feb 02, 2007 @ 12:12 AMSociety needs everyone from a brain surgeon to a labourer - and all are of equal value.LOL society might but the market sure as hell doesnt.my fathers a decorating foreman for 40 years since he was 12.my 22 year old trainee accountant sister now makes more than him in her first year.a degree doubles your income .stay in school kids
Posted by on Feb 02, 2007 @ 12:36 AMYes - it may, but then thats free market forces to you. Personally a mans worth is not measured by his wage packet but then not everyone has this opinion.
Form your own conclusions
Posted by on Feb 02, 2007 @ 01:21 AMIs there anyone arguing for selection that didn’t pass the exam?
Support for selection seems to go hand in hand with an inability to accept the clear evidence that the system is not working for society as a whole. Instead, the parents are blamed - but how were the parents treated to education ? They too had to go through the artificial and debilitating trauma of selection.
Selection has been damaging our society for generations - it is time to change, not deliberately ignore the problem.
“NI experiences more social mobility within its grammars than anywhere else”
Wrong - as has been stated, they serve just 7% of those requiring free school meals - other sectors serve 28%.
“We have a better social mix going on to university than the rest of GB. “
The “greater social mix” doesn’t include anyone studying in GB, so those benefitting from the “greater social mix” may not actually be from Northern Ireland.
There are real problems in schools - and I applaud JEB’s mention of the unmentionable behaviour issue - but working with parents who are already damaged, disillusioned and dispairing of the corruptions of the selective system ( tutoring, special circumstances etc ) is tinkering with the real issue.
What level of rates increases do you want to propose to enable us to re-educate nearly a quarter of the adult population?
Posted by on Feb 02, 2007 @ 01:19 PM“And, going back to my original point social differences in achievement are already apparent among 5 year olds. The 11+ is not the cause of the problem; getting rid of it will not, therefore, be the solution to the problem.”
That isn’t the point. Those from more stable and prosperous homes will always be at an advantage, and whiel the government should certainly look at softening that problem, it isn’t going to go away.
The key question is does the 11+ and selection exacerbate the problem and introduce further disadvantage. A small rate of working class pupils coming through the system can’t be a worthy trade off for failing almost all the rest of them.
Posted by on Feb 02, 2007 @ 01:24 PMan inability to accept the clear evidence that the system is not working for society as a whole.
That’s an assertion, not an argument Alan. I don’t accept the evidence because I think it clearly shows that there is vastly greater social mobility in Northern Ireland than aywhere else in the UK. And without the inbuilt stratification of the system south of the border where around a quarter of children are educated privately.
Abolishing grammar schools would do nothing to improve the standards of education for kids at the bottom, but it would seriously and negatively impact on the prospects of bright working-class kids.
The “greater social mix” doesn’t include anyone studying in GB, so those benefitting from the “greater social mix” may not actually be from Northern Ireland.
There are relatively few students from outside Northern Ireland in either of our universities - a percentage in single figures. So that’s a factor of second-order importance, at best.
I’ve always thought that the middle-class left had a direct interest in destroying grammar schools - they could retreat to suburban comprehensives which ensured none of their children risked attending a secondary school, and none of their children had to compete with bright kids with thicker accents from the estate down the road. Then when university application time came, a lot of the bright kids from the estate down the road would have had the spirit crushed out of them and - wayhey - even less competition for your kids. And you can even claim to be a great social egalitarian while doing it. Couldn’t be better.
The key question is does the 11+ and selection exacerbate the problem and introduce further disadvantage. A small rate of working class pupils coming through the system can’t be a worthy trade off for failing almost all the rest of them.
That’s an argument for tackling the educational disadvantage faced by most working-class children - not for destroying the escape route for the poorest children and ensuring that society’s Ă©lite (and all societies have them) is a self-perpetuating, closed, oligarchy. That children from our poorest communities do badly is sadly true. That getting rid of the 11+ and getting rid of grammar schools would help them do better is, at best, unproven.
Kensei, I currently live in a little upper-middle class enclave in South East London. All the kids in my little cluster of streets go to the ex-grammar (theoretically now comprehensive) or are privately educated. The kids from the council estates surrounding my little enclave go to sink schools in Peckham, or if they’re Catholic, a sink school on the Old Kent Road. Ne’er the twain shall meet, more than four decades after the abolition of the 11+ in Inner London.
At the same time, the figures being put Mick’s original post would indicate that Inner London has the best education in the UK. Clearly, that isn’t the case; but it what it does have is lots of well paying jobs that attract well educated people from all over the world. Northern Ireland has few well paying jobs so loses well qualified people. Don’t get caught comparing apples and oranges.
Posted by on Feb 02, 2007 @ 03:33 PMSammy
I don’t agree with you much, however you have put a lot of fresh ideas into this debate.
Posted by on Feb 02, 2007 @ 03:52 PM“That’s an argument for tackling the educational disadvantage faced by most working-class children - not for destroying the escape route for the poorest children and ensuring that society’s Ă©lite (and all societies have them) is a self-perpetuating, closed, oligarchy. That children from our poorest communities do badly is sadly true. That getting rid of the 11+ and getting rid of grammar schools would help them do better is, at best, unproven.”
I have yet to see any evidence that suggests that there is anyway to reform the 11+ to increase the working class throughput. Otherwise people’s route out are on the backs of others failing.
Posted by on Feb 02, 2007 @ 04:09 PMAlan,
I’m not arguing for it, so much as flagging up costs that should be thought through before it is abolished.
Newton wrote this piece on similiarly unintended consequences to those outlined by Sammy above.
Posted by on Feb 02, 2007 @ 04:20 PM“That’s an assertion, not an argument Alan. I don’t accept the evidence because I think it clearly shows that there is vastly greater social mobility in Northern Ireland than aywhere else in the UK.”
Evidence it then, but do try and include the fact that we have the worst rates of kids leaving school without qualifications in GB. Selection supporters will keep whittering on about the top 2 % of the population - open your eyes and stop wishing our problems away. Unless, of course your intention is to let those communities sink further into educational oblivion. Those of us who actually live here don’t have that luxury.
“Abolishing grammar schools would do nothing to improve the standards of education for kids at the bottom, but it would seriously and negatively impact on the prospects of bright working-class kids.”
Look at the best performing state systems across the globe and they are all comprehensive. There is no good reason to discriminate against the majority of the population in order to advantage a tiny minority. There is one very bad reason, however, and that is to socially engineer advantage for the well off - that is happening in NI today.
Grammar schools are allowed to add voluntary and mandatory charges from parents on top of the state subsidy ( at one school that amounts to around ÂŁ 700 p.a.) so that Grammars end up spending nearly 50% more than other state funded schools. So we benefit the more able by depriving the more needy. Why should we accept such an outrageous anomaly? Why do working class kids need escape routes, rather than a sound education ?
Your high fliers should be aided through special measures, not through completely skewing the whole educational system.
Posted by on Feb 02, 2007 @ 04:41 PMkensei
I have yet to see any evidence that suggests that there is anyway to reform the 11+ to increase the working class throughput.
Ken, you’re the one arguing for a change. Show me any evidence that suggests that scrapping the 11+ would increase working class throughput.
You don’t make things better for kids at the bottom by denying the brightest and best and opportunity to thrive.
Alan
do try and include the fact that we have the worst rates of kids leaving school without qualifications in GB.
This was certainly true at one time but I know the gap narrowed and was eliminated by the mid-1990s (I can give you Hansard references if you like). It is still so often mentioned that I assumed it had widened again in recent years but can find no evidence of it despite Google. If you can find me evidence of it I will happily eat humble pie but until then, I’m afraid I’ll have to see it as something that comes from the eighties, like a lot of the arguments of the Northern Ireland comprehensive lobby.
Selection supporters will keep whittering on about the top 2 % of the population
I have no problem with whittering on about the top 2% of the population. Elites matter, and so does who becomes members of them. But actually, I wasn’t whittering on about the top 2% of the population. I was whittering on about the top 30% of the population. And about why closing the schools attended by them will not help the bottom 20% of the population (the people in the 30-80% range do perfectly well anyway).
Look at the best performing state systems across the globe and they are all comprehensive.
And usually in a completely different way than what is meant by that term in these islands.
There is one very bad reason, however, and that is to socially engineer advantage for the well off - that is happening in NI today.
Alan - wise up. That is happening in England today. That is happening in the South today. That is happening in Scotland today. That is happening in super-comprehensive France today. Take Germany, where slightly over half the country is comprehensive and the remainder selective. Is there any evidence that the comprehensive areas are more socially fair? No. Our Primary School system is comprehensive; is does not produce equal outcomes.
You’re putting emotion above logic here, tossing words like ‘discrimination’ and ‘social engineering’ around. Sorry.
Grammar schools are allowed to add voluntary and mandatory charges from parents on top of the state subsidy
Which is disgraceful, especially the mandatory element, and which I would outlaw tomorrow.
Why do working class kids need escape routes, rather than a sound education ?
You’re just showing how middle-class you are. I needed an escape route because in the primary school I went too, being clever and liking reading was ‘poofy’ and a shortcut to a kicking, especially if you were bad at football. Everybody whitters on about looking after children’s special needs; well my special need was to get the hell out of the shithole of a Primary School I went to and away from most of the arseholes I went with to it and get to somewhere I could be left in peace.
And there was no other option, not for people like us. My father wasn’t working at the time (cue violins); moving to a different catchment area isn’t really an option when you’re a Housing Executive tenant on housing benefit.
And, before you ask, the other kids? Well, a lot of them had their own individual needs too, and where lucky enough to go to a secondary school that was just in the process of being turned around from a sink into a school that got good results for some hard kids; not in the sense of them getting 15 A stars and going to Oxford; but in the sense of them learning how to read, write and do maths properly (which many didn’t when they arrived); giving them a sense of responsibility and self-discipline; signposting them to sensible post-16 training that they were going to have an interest in; and also having an academic stream for the late bloomers to move back into a track that would take them on to university. There are always a lot of working-class kids who bloom late in a good secondary school.
But lots of young people are never going to be brain surgeons - and so what. You can survive without a lawyer but try spending a week with a blocked up bog in the summer. The last time I checked, we had a shortage of people in a lot of the skilled trades, including high earning ones like plumbing. The last thing we need is to force kids into an academic route that doesn’t suit them.
Posted by on Feb 02, 2007 @ 06:02 PMSammy
So how many kids in your P7 class actually wanted to go to St Malachy’s and were disappointed?
Posted by on Feb 03, 2007 @ 12:27 PMSammy,
Take the time to read Burns - (http://www.deni.gov.uk/index/22-postprimaryarrangements-new-arrangements_pg/22-ppa-research_and_reports_pg/22-ppa-rap-br_pg.htm )
Not from the ‘80’s, but from 2001 whence this whole process developed.
Also read The recent Barooah report ( http://www.delni.gov.uk/index/statistics-and-research/stats-research/research.htm ), rather than dismissing it.
The Grammar lobby liked to dismiss the word of children and adults who had been damaged by selection as mere anecdote and demanded stats. Well, they and you have them, so lets have less of anecdote from yourself and tell me why skewing the Education system helps the majority of real flesh and blood kids out there.
“There are always a lot of working-class kids who bloom late in a good secondary school.”
. . . who would bloom all the earlier without the demoralisation of selection.
“You can survive without a lawyer but try spending a week with a blocked up bog in the summer. The last time I checked, we had a shortage of people in a lot of the skilled trades, including high earning ones like plumbing.”
That’s straight out of the DUP guide to a good education. Last time I checked most of our plumbers were Lithuanian and local guys were getting it tight, so I don’t know how up to date your local knowledge is.
I’m not even going to grace the blocked bog with a snifter of wit, Sammy, but, surely it’s time to dump generalising from the specific and start treating this issue with the seriousness it deserves.
Posted by on Feb 03, 2007 @ 03:22 PM
