The case for ending selection at 11

A presentation at the Irish Association Winter Seminar
entitled: 'Excellence or Mediocrity? The future of second level education in Northern
Ireland' November 16, 2002
Tony Gallagher
Graduate School of Education
Queen's University Belfast
am.gallagher@qub.ac.uk

INTRODUCTION
'It should be borne in mind that there is nothing more difficult to arrange, more doubtful of success, and more dangerous to carry through than initiating changes in a state's constitution. The innovator makes enemies of all those who prospered under the old order, and only lukewarm support is forthcoming from those who would prosper under the new'.
So wrote Machiavelli, in The Prince in 1532. As someone who has been closely associated with the debate over the future of education in Northern Ireland over the past four years, first in publishing research evidence on the effects of selective education, and later in helping to prepare the 'Burns Report', let me attest to the accuracy of Machiavelli's statement. And, I should add, we did not even initiate change, just suggested some directions in which we felt change should go.

CHRONOLOGY
The debate over the selective system of grammar and secondary schools has been around almost as long as the system itself, but the debate has never generated as much energy as the current and ongoing discussion. My first academic job was with the Northern Ireland Council for Educational Research (NICER) to work on their Transfer project. Between 1985 and 1990 NICER produced a series of reports, all of which pointed to significant weaknesses in the selective system. The Conservative government of the day was little interested in exploring the issue, and had never really wanted the research carried out in the first place. Indeed, shortly after the last report was published the Department of Education decided that NICER's research did not make a significant contribution to policy and so decided to withdraw its annual grant, thereby effectively shutting the organisation down. One might speculate on whether the research and the decision to close were mere concidence.
There the issue lay until the Labour government was elected in 1997. Many in Northern Ireland felt that the new Minister with responsibility for education might move to abolish the selective arrangements. Instead he decided to commission two pieces of research, aimed at providing an informed basis for discussions on the future of the system.

SELECTION RESEARCH
The first study examined the system of delayed selection at age 14 years operated in the Craigavon area. The second study was larger in scope and involved an examination of the effects of the selective system on schools, teachers, the wider society, parents and pupils. A team of 25 academics from all four Northern Ireland higher education institutions, led by Alan Smith of the University of Ulster and myself, won the tender to carry out this work. The project began in late 1998. When power was devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly, Martin McGuinness, the new Minister of Education, extended the remit of the project to include some comparative research.
The final report was published in September 2000 and included two volumes containing 23 research papers of detailed evidence. Copies of the research reports were widely circulated, a short briefing paper was prepared and reprinted in full by the main local newspapers. All of the research evidence was made available on the web (and still is) in order that it could be subject to scrutiny. Obviously there was a lot of detail in all this evidence, but the essential core to the findings were that:
- first, while the selective system produces high achieving grammar school, it also produces a long tail of low achieving schools;
- second, the curriculum of primary schools is significantly disrupted due to preparation for the 11+ tests;
- and third, the system has a divisive impact on pupils, teachers and schools
But the report also argued that finding a solution to the all-too-evident problems in the selective arrangements was not going to be easy and that there was no 'perfect system' we could identify and drop into Northern Ireland. In the concluding paragraph of the main report we attempted to identify a way forward:
A debate that simply revolves around school structures may unduly narrow the terms of the discussion, encourage the inaccurate view that significant problems are easily solved and lose sight of the broader purposes of education. The starting-point for discussion ought to be the social, educational and economic objectives young people should achieve from their educational experience. Then the education structure that seems best placed to provide these ends can be determined.

REVIEW BODY
When the research report was published the Minister of Education, Martin McGuinness, announced the establishment of a Review Body to bring forward recommendations on the future of post-primary education, Gerry Burns, the former Ombudsman, was invited to Chair the Review Body. I was invited to act as one of five academic advisers to the Review Body.
What followed was probably the most extensive public discussion on education ever seen in Northern Ireland. The Review Body held public meetings across Northern Ireland that were attended by over 2,500 people. We held meetings with representatives of dozens of organisations and groups; visited many schools and spoke with teachers, pupils and parents; members of the Review Body carried out study visits to examine a range of other systems; and we received over 2,000 written submissions offering suggestions and ideas on the way forward.
The Review Body's report, Education for the 21st Century (popularly known as the Burns Report), was published in October 2001. Based on the concluding theme of the research report, the Review Body began its task by identifying a set of Guiding Principles. These were to act as criteria for judging the merits of various options for the future and led us to our three main conclusions:
- First, that we should end the use of the 11+ transfer tests and abolish the use of academic selection at age 11.
- Second, that we should replace the transfer tests with a system of formative assessment in order to provide genuine educational information to teachers, parents and pupils.
- And third, post-primary schools should be grouped into collaborative networks of Collegiates, each of which would contain a diversity of school types.

CONSULTATION ON REVIEW BODY RECOMMENDATIONS
There followed another extensive period of consultation up to the end of June, 2002. The formal consultation process organised by the Department of Education contained a number of distinct strands:
- a detailed response booklet was sent to schools, higher and further education institutions, training organisations, and community and voluntary groups;
- a response form was sent to every household in Northern Ireland so that as many adults as wished to could submit their views;
- questions on the recommendations were included in the Northern Ireland Omnibus survey;
- in collaboration with the Youth Service, research was carried out on the views of a sample of young people;
- and groups and individuals were encouraged to send written submissions to the Department.

The report on the findings of the different strands of the consultation process was released just a few weeks ago, although, in truth, there has been little discussion on the report to date, largely because of the suspension of the political institutions.
But we can begin to correct that here this morning. If a new politics is to take root in Northern Ireland then it is important that we make time to discuss issues such as education. Whatever our political orientations we have a common, shared interest in an education system that meets the diverse needs of all our young people, giving them the skills and qualifications they will need to become active participating citizens in a new society and a successful economy. Whatever the debates of the past, and the future, we should never lose sight of that common goal.
That is not to say that we should not engage in robust debate, and this is where I would now like to turn!

THE DEBATE CONTINUES
Over the past couple of years I have spoken at many meetings and seminars on these issues. Almost invariably I have been talking about, and usually defending, a paper or report that I had a hand in writing, whether it was one of the research papers, or the Burns Report itself.
There were many occasions when I was keenly reminded of Machiavelli's warning, as noted above, that 'the innovator makes enemies of all those who prospered under the old order …'.
But this morning I find myself in a slightly different position. It is a great honour to share this platform with Danny Kennedy, Ulster Unionist MLA and distinguished Chair of the Assembly Education Committee, and Arthur Green, currently of the Cadogan Group, but who previously made a hugely significant contribution to social and educational life inNorthern Ireland.

DIFFERENTIATION AT 11: THE EVIDENCE
The Ulster Unionist Party and the Cadogan Group submitted written views to the consultation on the Burns Report, which gives me an opportunity to cast a critical eye over some of the claims and evidence they offered for their preferred way forward. So, before I comment on our recommendations for change, let us consider some of the alternatives.
As I embark on this I should perhaps say that I only had access to the executive summary of the UUP response to the Review Body recommendations - this is all that the Department of Education published on the website. I did, however, have the full submission from the Cadogan Group.

I am sure that my two colleagues will provide a more eloquent presentation of their respective views, but let me try to suggest what I think are the main elements in their views.
Both positions place great emphasis on the need to maintain high standards - incidentally, one of the criticisms of the Burns Report by the Cadogan Group was that we were more interested in 'equality' than in 'standards', as if we were on some 'bleedingheart liberal' agenda and felt that standards were passé. This rankled with me, as I knew from our discussions in the Review Body that one of our driving passions was the need to raise standards for all our pupils. But I'll return to this.
The UUP and the Cadogan Group feel that in order to maintain high standards it is necessary to have a diversity of school types and that some of the schools should have an academic priority, much like the grammar schools. They also argue that the appropriate point for this differentiation to begin is at age 11, but they disagree on how the selective decision should be made. The UUP view is that, ultimately, the school should decide who is permitted to enter. The Cadogan Group feels that parents should have the right to choose, but that the school should have the right later on to force the child to repeat a year or leave for another school is the child is not meeting the school's requirements.
Two main assertions are offered to support these views, and this might be summarised as follows:
- First, we know that differentiation is necessary because comprehensive education does not work. And we know comprehensive education does not work because it has had disastrous consequences in England, Scotland and Wales.
- Second, we know that differentiation works because, in some European countries that use differentiation between schools, the education system is very successful. Some specific evidence is offered for these assertions. The first assertion, that comprehensive education is a disaster, is based on three main sources of evidence:
- first, education performance in Northern Ireland is higher than in any other part of the UK;
- second, a higher proportion of young people from working-class backgrounds in Northern Ireland go to university, in comparison with any other part of the UK;
- and third, the Labour government in London is busy dismantling the comprehensive system and re-introducing selection at 11.
As far as the second assertion is concerned, the Cadogan Group paper does not actually provide any evidence on the superiority of the German system, but asserts that it is 'widely admired', 'guarantees high standards' and is 'undoubtedly popular'.
I would like to examine each one of these claims in turn.

First, the claim that educational performance in Northern Ireland is higher than in any other part of the UK One of the issues which concerned me as this discussion proceeded was the simplistic approach taken by some people. Following the original research report a briefing paper prepared for one of the groups that was against significant change suggested that they '…should continue to emphasise in the debate the breadth of provision in our schools'.
However, as the consultation period on the Burns Report proceeded, the 'anti-change' position reduced to the repetition of a highly selective set of statistics claiming the superiority of the selective system in Northern Ireland. The most absurd level o reductionism was in a very specific claim, repeated by a large number of people, along the lines of:
Northern Ireland has 3.6% leaving school with no qualifications, in comparison with 5.6% in Scotland, therefore standards in the Northern Ireland selective system are higher than in the Scottish comprehensive system.
This is, I think, a rather sweeping assertion. Quite apart from the implicit assumption that education is just about qualifications and nothing else, it is a highly selective use of the data. Given that this Northern Ireland/Scotland comparison was being used to assert the 'superiority' of the selective system, how does it stand when we use a range of performance indicators:
In the same year as the 3.6% and 5.6% datapoints were found:
- 57 per cent of school leavers in NI had 5 or more good GCSEs or equivalent, as with 58 per cent in Scotland
- 20 per cent of leavers in NI failed to get one GCSE at grade C or above, compared with 16 per cent in Scotland
- in NI 59 per cent got a GCSE or equivalent in English, compared with 71 per cent in Scotland
- in NI 48 per cent got a GCSE in Maths, compared with 53 per cent in Scotland
- in NI 46 per cent got a GCSE in science, compared with 62 per cent in Scotland
- in NI 47 per cent got a GCSE in a modern language, compared with 54 per cent in Scotland
- in NI 14 per cent got a GCSE in craft, design and technology, compared with 22 per cent in Scotland
- and in NI 30 per cent of pupils got GCSEs in the core curriculum subjects, compared with 40 per cent in Scotland.
These data, taken from the same report that the 5.6% and 3.6% figures were taken, show the highly misleading nature of the claim that had been made about the superiority of the selective system in NI in comparison with Scotland. You could just as easily take all the indicators I have mentioned to claim exactly the opposite, that is, that the comprehensive system in Scotland gets far higher standards than the selective system in Northern Ireland.
As a further twist, the data above are for the year 1999/2000. We now have data for the year 2000/2001. The broad patterns are similar to the above. However, in 2000/2001 the proportion of leavers with no GCSE graded results was 4.5% in Northern Ireland and 4.7% in Scotland. Compared to the previous year, an unscrupulous person might argue that this shows a dramatic 16% improvement in performance in Scotland, and a shocking 25% decline in Northern Ireland, but I would never abuse statistics in such a cavalier way.
The Scottish comparison has had another aspect - some people have argued that the end of selection at 11 would lead to the growth of private schools. If the comprehensive system in Scotland is so good, they say, then why do 25% of pupils in Edinburgh go to private schools? Fair point. Except that, before comprehensive reorganisation in Scotland, the proportion of pupils who went to private schools in Edinburgh was also 25%. In Scotland as a whole less than 4% go to private schools. Also, statistics recently published by the Scottish Council of Independent Schools reveal that there has been a decline in enrolments in private schools in Scotland and that this has led to a number of
closures and amalgamations. Okay, so if that evidence does not look too strong, then what about the second source of evidence:
Second, the claim that a higher proportion of young people from working-class backgrounds in Northern Ireland go to university, in comparison with any other part of the UK
On the face of it, this claim looks a little more straightforward. An analysis of the UCAS data on entrants to higher education in 2001 shows that 28% of entrants from Northern Ireland were from working-class backgrounds, as compared with 23% in Scotland, 23% in Wales and 24% in England. Even taking account of the fact that the size of the working-class population may be a little higher in Northern Ireland, the difference in entry rates to higher education does exist.
The question is, however, can we attribute this to the selective system?
If we analyse the UCAS data further we find that the answer is 'probably not'.
First, if we look at the Northern Ireland entrants to higher education we find that only 55% come from grammar schools. The other 45% come from further & higher education, comprehensive schools, secondary schools and other sources.
Second, if we look at the social class background of entrants from these different sources then we find that 70% of the entrants from grammar schools come from middle-class backgrounds, as compared with 52% from further & higher education, 54% from comprehensive schools and 43% from secondary schools.
In other words, while Northern Ireland has a slightly higher proportion of entrants to higher education from working-class backgrounds, this is not because of the grammar schools, but rather it is despite the grammar schools.
We can look as this in another way using data collected for the Dearing Review of Higher Education in the UK a few years ago. When we examine patterns of entry to higher education in the UK over time, we see that, in 1950, 19% of middle-class young people went to higher education as compared with 3% of working class young people. By 1970 the middle-class participation rate had increased to 32%, but the working-class rate was only 5%. By 1995 the middle-class rate had increased to 45%, while the working-class rate had increased to 15%.
So what can we conclude from these data:
- First, when the predominant mode of entry to higher education in the UK was through grammar schools, then the vast majority of entrants were from middleclass backgrounds. Indeed, it was the failure of selection at 11 to deliver social mobility that was one of the reasons for its abandonment.
- Second, the main period of growth in working-class participation was in the early 1990s. This coincided with the main period of growth in higher education generally in the UK, but this was a result of a specific government decision and had nothing to do with the structure of the school system.
- Third, the previous main period of growth in higher education participation had followed the Robbins Review in the 1960s. But this happened because of a break with the old-fashioned notion that only a small proportion of the population were capable of dealing with academic concerns. This break was, of course, the logic behind the switch from the selective to the comprehensive arrangements in schools.
In other words, once again we can see that the high rate of participation in higher education in Northern Ireland is nothing to do with the selective system, but rather happened because of the rejection of the assumptions behind selective arrangements in Britain. So it would seem that this second area of evidence does not prove the superiority of selection at 11 either.
What then about the third area of evidence.
Third, the claim that the Labour government in London is busy dismantling the comprehensive system and re-introducing selection at 11 This is a claim that was made by a number of people during the consultation period. I noticed it highlighted on the website of one of the main groups lobbying against significant change. The headline on the website states: 'Estelle Morris [then the Education Minister in London] reviews second level education in GB and exposes the comprehensive system as inadequate'.
This would be powerful evidence if it was true. Unfortunately, it is not true. Let me quote some extracts from Estelle Morris' speech on June 24, 2002:
'Forty years ago the comprehensive system was launched with the clarion cry 'opportunity for all' and it was welcomed by the Labour Party and the country in general for scrapping the inequity of selection. 'It was welcomed because the tripartite system was so flawed. Dividing children at the age of 11 into success or failures was not only deeply contrary to our ambitions for equality of opportunity and a meritocracy, it no longer met the economic needs of the nation. It was the very opposite of 'opportunity for all' - it reserved opportunity for the privileged few and denied it to the majority.
'Comprehensive education came into being to allow every child to progress and improve themselves by merit and hard work, and to tear down the barriers that too often stopped the less well off from making a better life for themselves. 'That burning ideal is still the same. … 'I will argue today that it is now time to build on what was right about the comprehensive system, but take secondary schools on beyond the comprehensive era'. And later: 'Equality of opportunity will never be achieved by giving all children the same education. It's achieved by tailoring education to the needs of individual children. The old tripartite system could never have done that'. … And later: 'With the old grammar schools and secondary moderns, a tier of schools was forced to be second best. This was an inevitable consequence of that two-tier system'. … And she concluded:
'I believe this new comprehensive ideal will have a powerful impact on our young people, not just on test scores and examination results, but also on their learning capability, their self-esteem and their route to becoming better and more fulfilled citizens.'
There is much in this speech with which I agree and it has sparked an interesting debate in England. But my main point for quoting so extensively from it is to say that the claim that the speech is a clarion call for a return to the old system of selection at 11 is, how shall I say it, somewhat economical with the truth.
The Labour government in London is looking forward, to a post-comprehensive system of education, not back to the distant past. I think we should be looking forward as well.
I hope this brief review casts a little doubt on the claim that we must have selection at 11 because comprehensive arrangements are unambiguously disastrous.
As far as I am aware only one serious analysis of educational data claims that selectiv arrangements in England and Wales were more effective than comprehensive arrangements (John Marks, in reports for the grammar lobby in NI and the right-wing think-tank, the Centre for Policy Studies), and most of this is based on very limited analysis of raw data.
The two most serious and wide-ranging reviews of all the evidence on this issue, in books by Alan Kerckhoff and his colleagues in 1996, and a team from the Institute of Education in London in 1999, both concluded that the evidence was equivocal and that there was no strong case to make either way. (Kerckhoff, AC, Fogelman, K, Crook, D and Reeder, D (1996) Going comprehensive in England and Wales: a study of uneven change, London: Woburn Press; Crook, D, Whitty, G and Power, S, (1999) The grammar school question: a review of research on comprehensive and selective education, London: Institute of Education).
I understand from an article in the German newspaper, Der Spiegel, July 1, 2002, that the introduction of comprehensive education in Sweden was preceded by an experiment in which the capital, Stockholm, was split in two. One half kept the traditional school system while the other half had a comprehensive system. No pupil movement was allowed across the divide. According to Der Spiegel, the results of this experiment showed that the comprehensive schools produced the better results, particularly for the weaker pupils, so the Swedish parliament voted to change the entire system.
I note also that at the recent launch of the OECD annual report on education, Education at a Glance, the head of Education Analysis at the OECD claimed that, 'The most successful systems are comprehensive and are providing open pathways and highly personalised learning … The least successful systems are highly differentiated' (Times Educational Supplement, November 1, 2002). While The Independent (October 30, 2002) reported him as saying that 'highly differentiated systems, where pupils were forced to select an educational pathway early in their school careers - including those in Germany and Switzerland - were among the least successful'.
Interestingly, the head of Education Analysis at the OECD is Andreas Schleicher, a German, and this is perhaps an appropriate point to examine the claim on the superiority of the German education system.
And fourth, that the German system guarantees higher standards because it is differentiated
As I noted above, the Cadogan Group attach great significance to the superiority of the German school system, where pupils go to one of three school types after primary school. However, the Group does not offer any direct evidence for this claim. Perhaps they mean that German economic success after the Second World War was due to the education system? I suspect that reconstruction after the effects of allied bombing, huge investment through the Marshall Plan and a negligible defence budget probably played a significant role as well.
We should remember also that decisions on the structure of the post-war education system were based on social and political grounds, not educational ones. The US and British governments urged Germany to adopt a unitary comprehensive system, on the grounds that this was more likely to create democratic citizens. Instead the German government wanted a federalised education system, to avoid the possibility of centralised abuse that had occurred during the Nazi period, and they wanted to restore the system used in the Weimar period, almost as a way of saying that the Nazi interlude had been an atypical cul-de-sac.
Education is federalised and there is little standardization in assessment in schools, so Germany publishes little or no nation-wide statistics on educational performance. For this reason they place great reliance on international indicators, such as the 1995 and 1999 TIMSS (Third International Maths and Science Survey) and the 2000 PISA (Programme on International Student Assessment).
When the results of these international comparisons were published the German system fared rather poorly.
First, as reported in the Economist in March 29, 1997, 'The Germans, in turn, were shocked by their pupils' mediocre performance in the TIMSS tests. … A television network ran a special report called "Education Emergency in Germany"; industrialists accused politicians of ignoring repeated warnings about declining standards in schools'. The situation was even worse when the PISA results were published. Let me quote from a sample of articles in German newspapers:
Die Zeit, December 6, 2001: In an article entitled 'On the causes of the education calamity and how we can improve the schools' the Director of the German PISA study, Jürgen Baumert, was asked: 'What is the negative effect of early selection in school systems?' and he replied: 'Greater social segregation. For, as we have shown, attainment and social class go together. When children are divided into different school types based on their performance then this is, at the same time, separating them very early according to social class. The social segregation of schools in Germany is greater even than in the USA'.
In an interview in the Süddeutsche Zeitung on December 7, 2001, Baumert stated that: '…it is very much harder, in a system with early differentiation, to uncouple social class and attainment'.
Following the publication of results for the individual German Länder (which showed they were all performing poorly) Baumert stated, in an interview reported in Die Zeit on June 26, 2002, that: '… the three key findings from the international PISA study are strikingly confirmed: in German schools there is a large gulf in performance between the best and the weakest pupils. Next: social background of pupils plays a major role in academic achievement.
Finally: the development of the weakest pupils proceeds only very, very inadequately.' On June 28, 2002, the Süddeutsche Zeitung reported that: 'The international PISA study, at the end of last year, had already shown the dismal relationship: in no other industrialised country is a pupil's educational status and, most of all, their educational attainment, so strongly dependent on their social background as in Germany.'
For an article on June 27, 2002, Die Zeit invited a number of international experts to offer advice for the German education system. John Meyer, USA, suggested that 'selection in German schools is obsolete and unproductive'. Rainer Domisch, subject adviser for German at the Finnish Ministry of Education, suggested that the principle of selection in German education had to be replaced. He went on: 'Every pupil must be treated as a person in the process of being formed and be encouraged to make full use of their talents. Systems are made for people and not people for systems'.
Contrast these with the headlines that greeted the PISA results for Scotland:

The Scotsman, January 30, 2002: 'Scottish pupils have trumped their English counterparts in an international league table of results for maths and reading'. The Glasgow Herald, January 30, 2002: 'Scots pupils in top 10 world rating'. The Financial Times, January 31, 2002: 'Scotland shines in OECD education survey'. Daily Mail, January 31, 2002: 'World-class pupils: high marks for Scots in international test results'.
In 2001 the Swiss paper, Le Temps, reported that, for six weeks, German delegations had been going weekly to Finland to visit schools and teachers - this was after the PISA results had only been out for six weeks. Finland was the highest ranked country in the PISA study and, in Finland, differentiation does not occur until age 16 years. So, the claim that we must have early differentiation because it 'guarantees high standards' in other countries now looks a little shakey as well.
When we mention standards, and apologies if this makes me sound mildly obsessive, but you will recall I mentioned that I was rankled by the Cadogan Group's criticism that the Burns Report continually banged on about 'equality', but hardly ever mentioned 'standards'. I decided to check this out (and, I'm afraid, this is the potentially obsessive bit). A quick count of the text in the Burns Report suggests that we used the words 'equality' or 'inequality' 60 times, which I guess is quite a lot. But we used the word 'standards' 66 times. So here is yet another example where a bold assertion of the Cadogan Group turns out to be an empty vessel.
The truth of the matter, of course, is that 'equality' and 'standards' are not trade-offs in education. The PISA evidence shows very clearly that the countries with the highest average levels of performance are also the countries with the lowest levels of inequality in their educational structures and outcomes. In educational terms, promoting opportunity for all pupils make sound social, economic and educational sense.
So, the claims normally advanced to argue against change in the system are not very compelling when the evidence is examined in detail, or, in fact, when the evidence is examined at all.

CONSULTATION ON THE BURNS REPORT
There is now little debate on the 11+ tests. Right across the full range of responses in the consultation process there is a clear and unambiguous consensus that the 11+ test should go. The research published in 2000 show that they serve little or no educational function.
They do not even provide a good grounding in basic subjects, as the rote learning for test
preparation has all to be re-taught by post-primary teachers.
The 11+ tests are unreliable, inaccurate and unpopular, and the sooner we are shot of them the better.
The decision that they will end is a necessary step in focusing discussion from this point on. The context of the decision was unfortunate, to say the least, but far more disappointing was the fact that the political process had been stumbling towards suspension for some considerable time.
That said, I would be surprised if the proposed timetable for ending the 11+ tests will hold. In the interim, I would strongly recommend the Department of Education to move
away from the ludicrously unreliable and inaccurate narrow grade bands.
On other matters arising from the consultation, it is clear that we are now in a post-Burns world. The task we were given was to come forward with some recommendations for the future organisation of post-primary schools. We did that. Some of our ideas have found favour, some have not, but the results of the consultation provide several tracks for further discussion.

ACADEMIC SELECTION
One issue on which there is a range of views is in relation to academic selection. According to the report on the consultation those who opposed the abolition of academic selection included the two main unionist parties, two organisations representing grammar schools, the Governing Bodies Association and the Secondary Heads Association, the Institute of Directors, four district councils, a third of schools, most of the training organisations that responded, two-thirds of respondents on the household response form and over half of respondents on the omnibus survey.
Those in favour of abolishing academic selection included all the other political parties that responded, the Education and Library Boards, trade unions, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools, the Council for Integrated Education, the Transferors Representative Council, the body representing Irish Medium Education, the Institutes of further and higher education which responded, a majority of the voluntary and community groups that responded, two thirds of schools, the Human Rights Commission, the Children's law Centre, the Committee on the Administration of Justice, the Campaign against Selection, 30% of those who responded to the household response form and a third of respondents on the omnibus survey.
A number of other groups, included the Catholic Bishops, the principals of Catholic grammar schools, the Curriculum and Examinations Council and the Confederation of British Industry, looked forward to arrangements in which selection would not be necessary.
Clearly views on this issue remain deeply divided. Given this, I am disturbed that there is already some evidence of the same, narrow and simplistic focus on very specific bits of evidence from the consultation that I identified previously in relation to the misleading use of performance data. There are still too many people approaching this debate in a manner which suggests narrow self-interest. Our young people deserve better. They deserve a more considered, reflective debate where we consider and weigh as much of the available evidence as we possibly can.
Let me now offer a few thoughts on the issue of academic selection at 11. I think we should not forget that the current 11+ tests are just the latest in a 50 year long line of testing systems, all of which purported to select on academic grounds at age 11, and all of which were discarded because they palpably did not. And we are not helped by other examples: as far as I can tell there are only a tiny handful of countries that use a test at age 11 to mediate entry to post-primary school - two in Africa, one in South America and one-and-a-half Caribbean islands. This arcane practice has been abandoned virtually every else. Of course there are a few places, like Germany, that use alternative ways to differentiate at 11, but as we have already seen, the evidence from these systems is not all that encouraging.
The real problem is the insistence in making children fit into structures, rather than creating structures to meet the needs of children. Any of you who have children or grandchildren will know that each one has his or her own characteristics, interests and aptitudes. Each child is unique. And each develops in a different way and at a different time. Why do we, almost alone in the world, insist on squeezing children, in all their variety and uniqueness, into two rigid categories at such an early age.
I think it's a pity, in fact, that the consultation did not ask more detailed questions on the issue of academic selection. Analysis of the Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey agrees that most people want an end to the 11+ tests, but the continuation of some form of academic selection. But the Life and Times survey also found that most people felt that differentiation should occur at age 14 years, with many others suggesting it should occur at age 16 years.
I think it is notable also that many of the written responses to the consultation also felt that there should be differentiation, but that it should occur at a later stage, with many pointing to age 14 years as the key decision point.

COLLEGIATES
One of our recommendations in the Burns Report was that we should establish collaborative networks of post-primary schools or Collegiates.
Although this proposal was supported by 61% of respondents on the omnibus survey, schools, teachers and other educational interests were decidedly sceptical about the form we proposed. It is noteworthy that most people welcomed the idea that schools should engage in more cooperation and collaboration, but clearly many felt that the proposal we put forward was too bureaucratic and unwieldy.
Our intention with this proposal was to maintain diversity among schools, while harnessing the positive interdependence between schools in order that they might work together to meet the diverse needs of pupils. In our current arrangements the negative interdependence arising from competition forces the needs of institutions ahead of the interests of children.
During the consultation period, some people seemed to be beating their breast and saying, 'my school is an island, and I'll decide who I'm going to let on, and I don't care about anyone else'. Whose interest is best served by such an attitude? I am tempted to ask, do children exist to meet the needs of schools, or is it not that schools exist to meet the needs of children?
Clearly the specific Burns proposal on Collegiates has been judged wanting by educational interests, but there is a challenge to educationalists to respond in practica ways to the clear desire for more cooperation and collaboration between schools. This is the only way we will:
- Overcome the huge and unfair divergence of experiences for pupils according to whether they are in a school near the top or the bottom of the pecking order.
- Match the diversity of provision of schooling to the diverse and different needs of individual children.
- Give pupils equal access to separate specialisms and specialist expertise across our schools.
- And increase the intellectual curiousity and knowledge which comes from staff in the same discipline sharing continuous professional development and ideas.
If we leave schools in a 'devil take the hindmost' competition of 'beggar my neighbour', we shall achieve none of this.
Someone once said, if you're in a debate and you have facts, then use the facts. But if you're in a debate and you don't have facts, then you bang the table and use fear to advance your case. During the debate there were some people, I think, who used fear. People who argued that, in 'the world of Burns' their pupils would be banned from going to their present school, or would be forced to go to the 'awful school down the road'. When people used such tactics, did it not occur to them that, in pursuing their own narrow self-interest, they were perpetuating the very system which created those 'awful schools down the road'?
For me, perhaps one of the most striking features of consultation evidence was the huge divergence of views on core issues between the grammar schools, on the one hand, and the secondary and primary schools on the other. Another striking feature was the high correlation between the views of individual respondents and their social background. In the original research we concluded that the selective system had a divisive impact, and this divisiveness is laid before us once again.
In a very different context Abraham Lincoln once said: The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew.
In this debate, on the future of our education system in Northern Ireland, we must think anew, and act anew, for the dogmas of the quiet past are clearly inadequate to the stormy present. Our children deserve no less from us.