Tuesday, May 13, 2008
The worst of both
Catriona Ruane is considering the use of a transfer test as an interim measure with a steadily reducing proportion of Grammar school intake based on the test. If true, this proposal manages to combine the worst of both the present and proposed system, a test based on proportions rather than passing grade plus selection by postcode. It would appear to me to fall into the trap that Unionists so often fell into in the past, get together those of a like-mind to think what a compromise would be before presenting it to opponents. As an approach it generally fell flat on its face. UPDATE: The SDLP has condemned the notion as a climbdown by Sinn Fein, a theme that the SDLP have been pushing lately (see Dolores Kelly comments).
Fair Deal @ 04:29 PM
Amazingly, the SDLP have managed to mess up.
An open goal and they still miss.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 09:36 AMThe SDLP decision on this smacks of not appreciating the importance of the opportunity that SF handed to them on this issue. In a rush to get a statement out in repsonse to a SF tactic of leaking, they have made the decision on a purely policy basis. The problem being that on issues of huge political impact, political considerations should be taken into account.
The decision for how to proceed on this issue should’ve been taken at a level no lower than Durkan. There was no need to rush it.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 11:11 AMFair Deal – Nothing you’ve stated re. the Act takes away from my point. The minister can state that she’s keeping selection – the Act mentions that the abolition of selection would require cross-community support in the Assembly, - Yes, but if she says she’s keeping selection, then none of the Act that you quote will apply. As usual, the devil is in the detail – What you define, or don’t define as academic selection!!
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 01:07 PMWould Catriona be within the act if she kept academic selection by permiiting all schools to use it?
If as seems the idea, all future secondary “institutions” (per O’Dowd) are to have an academic or “Grammar” stream from 14 then allowing every school to stock that stream with potential top 30% recruits (the 11+’s A’s & B+’s?) would place, for example, the newly housed, centrally located, co-ed, Bangor Academy on an equal but different footing to the single sex, outskirts relocating, Bangor Grammar School.
This then offers incentive to achieve at Primary School (rewarded with a place nearer the front of the queue for the secondary of choice and perhaps higher initial streaming on entrance), and better local traffic management (as 70% would presumably be recruited on the basis of domestic proximity or other connection).
How about another few percent of preference allowance for sporting, mechanical or creative talent.
Regarding the “post-code lottery” my nearest local boys school used to be Bangor Grammar. It’s about to move across town to re-build on land previously used by the Boys’ High Schools’ - the Boys’ and Girls’ High Schools have already been amalgamated into my new closest school - Bangor Academy which sits on the old Glenlola Collegiate (Girl’s Grammar) site in the centre of town.
It’s a bit of a lottery, this post-code lottery.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 01:15 PMMM
IMO think two issues are being confused. The requirements under the StAA Act and the discretionary powers of a minister. The ‘requirement’ as outlined by Insider is incorrect about what is in the act.
SF seem to think that by going for guidance rather than regulation or law they avoid the vote. However, IMO there is a question mark over whether that would work (no doubt a judge could end up deciding). Also as guidance not regulations it could be ignored by the schools (despite the attempts to create legal bogeymen) so you still do not Achieve SF’s desired outcome. Additionally it opens a can of worms for the department in the rest of its plans around education which requirement the involvement of other departments.
Plus all this ducking and diving is not particularly impressing the general public and has a question mark of is it worth it when failure seems more likely than success? Plus in terms of the blame for the mess all the others and media have been pretty successful at getting it to fall on Ruane and to a lesser degree SF.
IMO while an Executive committee to look at it would be a partial climbdown by Ruane. If it produced a solution people would not be overly concerned about the backtrack. However, creating an ever greater and longer-term mess will create ire that has distance.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 01:52 PMJesus wept,get her the f**k away from education, the executive, the assembly...........
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 02:14 PMFD
Presumably the key development here is that a new kind of test is being devised which is taken in Grammar Schools themselves and set by CCEA.
In some ways this sounds like DENI doing their own test in order to stymie the plans of the 31 breakaways to set their own test.
Thus I wonder if the DENA-sponsired test allows the Grammars to select 100% using this test, in violation of the guidelines of 50%? Or will DENI be able to enforce their guideline percentages because they are in control of the test results?
If the latter this would seem to present a challenge for the Grammars: either set up their own test in parallel with the DENI sponsored one or go along with Ruane’s percentages.
Hopefully it will be clearer soon.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 02:28 PMHopefully it will be clearer soon.
LOL!
Anyone driving along the Upper Newtownards Road tomorrow, look out for flying pigs.....
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 02:43 PMSlug
Interesting questions. Don’t know the answers
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 04:34 PMno doubt a judge could end up deciding
That would be the ultimate refutation of the political system we have set up and would be a terrible shame, especially to Minister Ruane, if she is capable of being ashamed.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 09:23 PM
