Tuesday, September 08, 2009
“thereby initiating in Northern Ireland a postcode lottery for parents and pupils”
In the Guardian Henry McDonald has a lengthy report on the privatised post-primary transfer system we now have. Of particular interest is the warning, from Frank Bunting, northern secretary of the Irish National Teachers’ Organisation, of potential legal action.
Teachers’ unions have confirmed that the grammars, both state and Catholic, may end up in the courts if they turn down children on the basis of them not having sat the selection tests. “I don’t think there is any doubt that there will be legal challenges facing the grammars when the decisions are taken on who gets in early next year,” says Frank Bunting, northern secretary of the Irish National Teachers’ Organisation (Into). Bunting, whose union has 6,500 members in Northern Ireland, says the challenges are likely to come in areas where the education minister’s party, Sinn Féin, is strongest.
And, also in the Guardian report, some comments from the principal of Lumen Christi College in Londonderry
Despite being under siege from the combined forces of the department of education, the Catholic church and the teaching union, Lumen Christi’s principal, Patrick O’Doherty, believes there is strength in numbers.
“Lumen Christi was indeed the first Catholic college to opt for an entrance test,” he says, “but since then over 30 Catholic grammar schools and several non-Catholic schools, including integrated schools, have joined together in a consortium arrangement, sharing a common entrance assessment. Children can thus sit the examination in any of these schools and apply for a place in any other on the basis of their test score. The test is based on English and mathematics taught in the primary school curriculum.”
Like many defenders of the grammar schools, O’Doherty contends that the department’s alternative guidelines for school admissions will come down to a crude postcode lottery.
“It remains the intention of the college to operate academic selection in the near future, since the board of governors is committed to providing an excellent academic education for those pupils who seek such an educational pathway. The board believes that academic selection is both the most educationally sound and the most equitable means of selection, rather than compelling pupils to attend their nearest local comprehensive and thereby initiating in Northern Ireland a postcode lottery for parents and pupils,” says O’Doherty.
“However, like all grammar schools in Northern Ireland, Lumen Christi would have preferred to avoid the use of an entrance test altogether, and had lobbied the minister for education to allow schools to use ongoing primary school assessments and pupil profiles for the purpose of academic selection, thus avoiding the need for an entrance examination.”
Using the pupil profiles Annual School Reports in that way would seem to be a very sensible suggestion. But I would say that having suggested it myself..
Pete Baker @ 08:55 AM
It will indeed be a fine sight to see Sinn Fein bringing the full might of the British Courts to bear on Catholic schools, particularly in Derry.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2009 @ 10:38 AM“Like many defenders of the grammar schools, O’Doherty contends that the department’s alternative guidelines for school admissions will come down to a crude postcode lottery.
Some of us, including myself, may be forgiven for thinking that O’Doherty’s concerns over selection based upon “a crude postcode lottery” may skew more in the direction of fearing that the children of the better-off may not be best able to ensure entrance to the scholl of their choice under such a system and that those that do may wind up sharing the facilities with the children of a lesser God.
A postcode lottery may not be ideal but it is infinitely preferable to a selection system which effectively discriminates against the children of the poorer in society in favour of the children of those better off.
If there is to be a challenge in the courts to the discriminatory intent of these maverick schools then I most certainly hope that Sinn Fein will be giving their full support to such action and it wouldn’t do the DUP much harm to join them considering the support it draws from the working class unionist in whose interests it would be to combat this reactionary move by these schools.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2009 @ 10:47 AMIn my first paragraph above that would be “school of their choice” rather than “scholl”. I am sure that they are more than able to make the necessary selection of the appropriate orthapedic sandals for the dear ones and I have no conflict in that regard whatsoever.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2009 @ 10:51 AMI do not regard the grammars as being unfairly discriminatory against the poor. They do discriminate fairly between those who do well in their tests. Not the same thing.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2009 @ 10:57 AM“However, like all grammar schools in Northern Ireland, Lumen Christi would have preferred to avoid the use of an entrance test altogether, and had lobbied the minister for education to allow schools to use ongoing primary school assessments and pupil profiles for the purpose of academic selection, thus avoiding the need for an entrance examination.”
Wishful thinking there I fear. It may be Lumen Christi’s preference, but I don’t think the AQE schools would be keen.
Done right, it is the next best thing to the Dickson Plan, but the room for “sharp-elbowed” parents to up their child’s report is a real fear.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2009 @ 11:28 AMLegal challenges? So what?
There may of course be a few more challenges against teh Department for failing to provide a proper system of education.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2009 @ 11:47 AMShameful attempt at bullying and intimidation by Bunting - but then he is a socialist!
Posted by on Sep 08, 2009 @ 12:22 PMIf you were the head of a grammar school, would you bet the survival of the whole system on the legal outcome of a challenge to unofficial selection? If one case wins, and a judge endorses the guidelines over the unofficial testing, then hundreds of kids who took the test will be shown to have wasted their time.
The principals may win when the case comes - as more than Bunting believe it will - but if they lose the scale of the calamity for those grammar schools is enormous.Posted by on Sep 08, 2009 @ 12:36 PMIt won’t just be shinners taking them to court but will also be any vexatious middle class parent whose kid doesn’t get into the school of their choice.
This whole episode is bizarre - a willful self immolation by the grammar sector. They may be good at churning out lawyers, but they seem feeble at taking advice.
And there stands Patrick O’Doherty in a new school paid for by the state, saying he will only teach who he wants to teach, no matter what the state may wish.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2009 @ 12:44 PMThe proposition that a postcard lottery has been hereby initiated obscures the fact that where you live already has a direct influence on the type of school you go to. IIRC, over half of children in the BELB area go to selective schools, by contrast with just over a third in the SELB area.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2009 @ 12:55 PMWhat would happen if the grammars point blank refuse to accept the ruling of the court and threaten to close rather than impliment the imposition of the state over the parent?
An ever larger crises looms.
This debacle over education can only get worse. Why can the socialists not accept parental choice and freedom and leave the grammars alone. if the really had the interests of the children at heart they would give those in need of more help more resources.
The real problem here is not education per se. The problem is the dictat that all are equal. This is then taken to ridiculous lengths and so they try to legislate against success and failure. We are all different with different capabilities. Not that that makes us more or less valuable as people, just different. However socialists see this as wrong, we should all be identikit people with little difference so we sould all go to university get degrees and so on. That some do not negates a core belief. So education has to become a process that produces only equals.
In effect they will produce a system which will descend to a miasma of mediocrity.
Allow the children and parents their choice. They have choosen to send their children to the grammars. Allow them that without penalty. Allow freedom
Posted by on Sep 08, 2009 @ 01:09 PMWho runs this system? Is it a combination of Frank Spencer and Normal Wisdom? If you want to get rid of selective secondary education (and I think that on the whole this is a good idea, although I don’t think people who disagree are stupid or evil) it is VERY simple to do. Here’s how.
First, DENI issues an admissions code. It basically says “You can admit who you like to your school if you are willing to pay for it. But if you want public money, your admissions criteria must adhere to the following rules… One of them is to prohibit selection on the basis of academic ability”. You can wrap all manner of other anti-discriminatory good stuff in there too. If some schools don’t like it, call their bluff. There are a load of excess school places in NI at the minute, so there will be enough room for all the kids who are out there. Some schools might decide to go fee-paying. In which case good luck to them. Far more will huff and puff but take the DENI shilling, bitching and moaning all the way to the bank. Hardly any will choose to close - do they really want to sack a load of teachers and ruin their own careers rather than accept a few rough kids on to the campus?
Posted by on Sep 08, 2009 @ 02:16 PMCC
What would happen if the grammars point blank refuse to accept the ruling of the court and threaten to close rather than impliment the imposition of the state over the parent?
You think teachers want to give their jobs up in this climate? One will close if they really want to and the rest will fall in line. It’s possible some may go private, but the Catholic Church will squish any on its side of the fence that try it.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2009 @ 02:20 PMTesting, per se, is problematic. Our education system here in the States, while quite different from that in the six counties, has come to rely more and more on standardized testing to evaluate the effectiveness of the public schools and the progress that individual students are making.
Given a large enough statistical pool, it seems apparent that economic and social background plays an inordinate role in test scores. In general, the lower the income levels of the students’ families the lower the test scores.
Many students in addition to having difficult economic backgrounds which lead to lower scores, have learning disabilities which affect how they learn and how well they perform on standardized tests. There is a perpetual discussion in education circles over how best to accomodate these students once they are identified.
Education is tax supported for all students from K-12th grade. It is “free”, being supported by the taxpayers of the district and state. If parents choose to place their children in religious schools, and these are primarily but not exclusively, Catholic, or in a non-parochial private preparatory school, that is the parents’ choice, but there are sizeable tuition payments which much be met.
The public “free” schools must take all students living in their geographic district. Private schools both parochial and non-parochial use testing to screen applicants.
If a school child is denied admission to his neighborhood school in the six counties, (controlled or maintained) that is supported by taxpayer money, because he did poorly on an admissions exam, it seems that the state is discriminating against that child. Such discrimination would seem to be as reprehensible as discrimination based on race, for example.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2009 @ 04:24 PMRory Carr: A postcode lottery may not be ideal but it is infinitely preferable to a selection system which effectively discriminates against the children of the poorer in society in favour of the children of those better off.
A ‘Postcode Lottery’ would be positively benign compared with the *actual* result of ending selection: ‘Postcode Selection’ - which is not a lottery at all, and depends on how much money you can spend buying a house in the catchment area of a good school; or failing that, buying a house a long way from a bad estate.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2009 @ 05:40 PM“If a school child is denied admission to his neighborhood school in the six counties, (controlled or maintained) that is supported by taxpayer money, because he did poorly on an admissions exam, it seems that the state is discriminating against that child. Such discrimination would seem to be as reprehensible as discrimination based on race, for example.”
But discrimination is unfair treatment based on prejudice. So, if I’m tone deaf and apply to get into my local choir school (assuming there was one), I wouldn’t call it discrimination if they refused to take me. They’re selecting for singing ability, and I have none.
I’m pro-selection, though I’d like to see it take place at 14, but there’s clearly a sensible case to be made against selection.
And while I disagree that selection on academic merit is directly discriminatory, I would agree that there is a sense in which it is indirectly discriminatory in that, for all sorts of reasons, middle class children traditionally do better at school, and so the outcome of the test may partially depend on the child’s socio-economic background.
However, part of the reason I have doubts about the comprehensive system (where the child goes to the nearest school) is that I taught for a brief time in a sink (failing) school in London, and it didn’t seem to me true that children from a disadvantaged background had more opportunities under that system.
Seemed to me that parents in advantageous circumstances moved away, or somehow found the money to pay for private schooling. I think a comprehensive system can be indirectly discriminatory too.Posted by on Sep 08, 2009 @ 05:41 PMwaziotter: But if you want public money, your admissions criteria must adhere to the following rules… One of them is to prohibit selection on the basis of academic ability
DENI can’t impose that rule because the minister can’t get such a restriction through the executive. Welcome to power sharing, St Andrews style. Ruane doesn’t have the powers Martin McGuinness had in the same role, thank goodness.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2009 @ 05:44 PMNot to put too fine a point on it, but one use of the word “discrimination” implies prejudice, yes. But, if a student is denied a place in his or her school based upon test results, and those results are predicated in large part on that child’s socio-economic status, that’s discrimination, IMHO.
Regardless of the label you use, employing a standardized test at age 11 to determine the future education of a child, and all the consequences and ramifications that follow seems draconian from where I sit.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2009 @ 05:59 PMoldress: But, if a student is denied a place in his or her school based upon test results, and those results are predicated in large part on that child’s socio-economic status, that’s discrimination, IMHO.
“predicated”? Remember the old rule, ‘correlation isn’t cause’. So, before you can prosecute a case for discrimination, you have to eliminate both nature and nurture. That’s a big task. Most zealots struggle to ignore even one of those.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2009 @ 06:07 PMSinn Féin have effectively privatised the 11+, it’s just so ridiculous. Soon, no doubt, they’ll be able to add water to the list.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2009 @ 06:15 PMReader,
I think a case for discrimination can be made based upon the statistical results themselves, and no nature versus nurture argument is remotely relevant.
If students whose test scores fall into the lowest quartile, come from families whose incomes fall below the national average, a prima facie case is made that denying them a place in a grammar school based upon those test scores alone constitutes discrimination based on their socio-economic status. Once such a prima facie case of discrimination has been made, the burden is then on the defendant (the state) to go forwared and refute by clear and convincing evidence the prima facie case that has been made by the plaintiffs (the students allegedly discriminated against by the testing).
Setting aside entirely the issue of discrimination, it is wicked to base the type of all future education available to a child solely on the outcome of one test taken at age 11.
About test taking, Alfred Einstein wrote, “I would feel under such strain that I felt, rather than going to take a test, that instead, I was walking to the guillotine.”
Posted by on Sep 08, 2009 @ 07:11 PMS/B “ALBERT Einstein”
Posted by on Sep 08, 2009 @ 07:16 PMoldruss: If students whose test scores fall into the lowest quartile, come from families whose incomes fall below the national average, a prima facie case is made that denying them a place in a grammar school based upon those test scores alone constitutes discrimination based on their socio-economic status.
I repeat ‘correlation isn’t cause’ - you’re not a scientist, then. For brevity, lets make it simplistic and harsh: Sometimes families are poor because they are thick, or lazy, or feckless. The children likewise - whether through nature or nurture it scarcely matters. Now, that really is prima facie!
In order to prosecute your case, you need to have some idea how strong that effect should be, before you can prove that the outcome is even worse that you really ought to expect.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2009 @ 08:47 PMReader
You are pretty much right. Certainly “Correlation isn’t cause”
However if parents could show that a bright child who is well capable of gaining from a Grammar school education is being denied it due to a personal opposition to selection there may be a care that they have been discriminated against.
Posted by on Sep 09, 2009 @ 08:50 AM“If students whose test scores fall into the lowest quartile, come from families whose incomes fall below the national average, a prima facie case is made that denying them a place in a grammar school based upon those test scores alone constitutes discrimination based on their socio-economic stat”
Unfortunatly for the anti 11+ brigade a lot of children (my self and four siblings eg) came ” from families whose incomes fall below the national average” the 11+ provided entry to grammar school—university and the professions.
The SUCCESS of pupils from “lower” socio-economic groups will focus attention on those who fail from the same grouping and ask uncomfortable questions of why some fail and some do not
In retrospect it was down to endless parental support and sacrifice.
Posted by on Sep 09, 2009 @ 09:27 AM
