This is a sign of normalization.

When NI was a total hole, the young people used to study hard to assist their departure out of it.

It should 'unacceptable'.. standards are def. slipping!

Most of that article is correct and will hopefully give these issues the attention they need. But I have a question about:

gap between those achieving the highest and lowest levels of attainment is unacceptably wide, even while taking into account the circumstances occasioned by adverse social and other environmental factors

Where does she account for the most important factor of all, the students ability? Is that treated as an environmental factor?

The gap between high and low achievers is the price of the selective educational system we have in place. While the professional classes can glowingly endorse the current system as it delivered the promising future they are enjoying, unfortunately it has also delivered the unacceptably high levels of underachievement.

This is only to be expected when, at the age of 11, we determine that all the 'weakest' learners should be lumped together in one building. Throw in the fact that the worst behavioural problems emanate from the 'weakest' learners and you're left with a system which condemns a massive section of the youth before they've even hit puberty.

OC,

Don't confuse ability and opportunity.

If your parents can't read or count, who helps you do your homework?

Or,if your parents don't talk to you, how do you learn to interact with others?

Or, if you only access stimulating toys in other people's homes, how do you develop fine motor skills?

If no-one at home can help you - is that somehow your fault? Do you measure that child's *ability* in the same way as everyone else?

The most depressing thing I heard recently was an English parent whose child had a mild learning difficulty ask a principal if their child's disadvantage would be taken into consideration should they take the 11+. The inevitable answer was no.

"Don't confuse ability and opportunity."

There is UNLIMITED opportunity. After a relatively short time in education (7 years) I am amazed at that the biggest barrier to teaching is student behaviour. Second , third (and then NVQ) chances are dished out to people who are quite simply arseholes - the are the sons and daughters of arseholes and are on a collision course with the DOLE/Drug Gangs/Paramilitary thugs either as victims or participants.

(I am amazed that some parent has not sued because their child's education has been ruined by the arseholes in his/her class)

Teachers are regularly told to "fuck Off"- a recent enquiry to a child (yes a child of 16) as to why he was late for class was " I was wanking in the toilet".

What is significant to me is the accuracy of the RESULT of the 11+. Those who pass it escape to a civilised environment and have the opportunity and appear to achieve- mostly becase they do not have cope with the presence of the disrupter identified above --Cause or Effect ?? I leave it with you -but imagine the wanking pupil`s effect in one of our grammer schools.

The only bright spot is that these "Protected species" do leave school without a GCSE to scratch their arse with. -seen at a dole queue near you soon

The death of the apprenticeship system is a tragedy, with the building industry short on skills and safety, and too many 'neets*' out on the streets short of adequate male role models. (*Not in Employment, Education, or Training) The drugs trade and crime alongside a booming economy offer a tax free boost to welfare payments alongside housing paid for by housing benefit.

Its a mess, and getting bigger exponentially as it replicates into another generation, with long term jobs fit to support a family without benefits hard to come by. In terms of social capital and adequate behaviour to others, some areas may be going bankrupt, with local employers importing more mature people from elsewhere to get any real job done.

I hope global economic competition does not lead us down the American route where the trend is 'arrested' by imprisoning entire populations and by keeping people working through fear of poverty and homelessness.

There's no easy answer to this one. I'm in favour of selection, but not necessarily by a test at eleven. If peoples gifts aren't identified how can we put them into the most stimulating environment? If a child is not studious, but is strong manually or physically, why should this, their gift, not be developed. They may never pass an exam, which is now the only way equal opportunity can be measured - you need the qualifications.

The society we live in does not treasure hard work and resulting achievement. A persons success is simply measured in how much money they apparently earn - and today it doesn't matter how they do it, as long as they're visibly spending. No-one is allowed to question it. Until we can change this and make success in all fields of employment equally rewarded, not necessarily with money, then we'll have this problem.

I think attitudes in society will have to change before we'll allow our childrens' education to be ideal.

I suspect some children today are never told "No." Some of their parents were never told "No." and don't know how to say it now. This is the root of children not co-operating with adults outside their home. If anyone says "No" to them they (and their parents?) can't handle it.

I would certainly prefer selection by academic ability to selection by postcode - and let's be clear, that's the choice. But equally a one-off set of exams is not the only way to determine academic ability, nor should it necessarily be done at only one age.

But the whole debate about selection means we're taking our eye off the ball concerning broader education: let's be clear, people in NI are not well educated. This is mostly to do with the further education system which funds people through frankly farcical degree programmes rather than training them for the real world of work in the real industries of the future. That's one of many things the Republic does much better, and one of the many reasons it's so far ahead in many ways.

*There is UNLIMITED opportunity.*

Not if you have to do it all on your own at the age of 11.

*After a relatively short time in education (7 years) I am amazed that the biggest barrier to teaching is student behaviour.*

And what is that symptomatic of, if not the kind of disadvantage that I was talking about.

*What is significant to me is the accuracy of the RESULT of the 11+.*

Which is why the 20% who get the exam are joined by a further 25% who did not get the exam in order to fill up grammar school places.

Which is why some grammar schools are now beginning to take grade D's.

Which is why the exam will become increasingly irrelevant as demographic change results in an even wider academic slice of the population attending grammar schools until grammar schools have to start taking on board the special needs agenda and their whole ethos will have to change anyway.

No-one is denying that there is a disruptive element in schools that needs dealt with - if for no other reason than making life more agreable to other pupils and their teachers. However, it does have to be dealt with. You can't just complain and vilify, you have to act - there are real problems that are distroying kids' life chances.

*but imagine the wanking pupil`s effect in one of our grammer schools.*

Actually I remember much worse than that at the grammar school I attended - then it was generally put down to *high spirits*.

IJP

*I would certainly prefer selection by academic ability to selection by postcode - and let's be clear, that's the choice.*

Actually it's not. The existing system is already heading towards a postcode system because kids that live in a travel to work area with a large number of grammar schools - such as South Belfast - will stand a greater chance of getting into grammar schools than those in rural areas - even with lower grades.

There is a huge effect pending with the reduction in school numbers which will impact over the next 5 - 10 years. There were 45,000 empty places in our schools in 2000, and the whole thing needs serious consideration. I'd argue that integration makes fiscal sense in such a market.

Alan

That's my point. We have to decide 'academic' or 'postcode lottery'. As you say, the current system is now tending towards the latter.

Furthermore you are of course entirely right about the very worst thing about our current system - selection by religion.

Schools should select solely on academic ability tested over a number of years in a number of ways. Within reason, religion and postcode should have nothing to do with it.

But don't miss the main point of my posting - the real issue concerning how well educated our workforce is is the failure of our further education system.

I didn't realise religion was a criterion for gaining a place at a state grammar school.

Much as I support the idea of integrated education, I was under the impression that integrated schools were all comprehensive at present.

IJP: is Alliance policy not to support the Costello report?

Beano,

Religion is not a criteria at state schools - though it may be part of the hidden curriculum.

Most Integrated schools are comprehensive - and are increasingly the most successful non-grammar sector.Selecting by ability and then by religion would make it almost impossible to fill a school.

Lagan College have a grammar stream - just as any school could have a grammar stream or - better still - an academic *band* in key subjects where very able pupils could be encouraged to excell. The issue is that all pupils can go in through the same front door.

Being comprehensive need not mean failing to recognise achievement as some people suggest.

There also need be no restriction on moving up or down subject bands, depending on how your results go. Pupils would then have an incentive to improve, rather than being defined as a failure at 11 as at present.

I honestly feel that the main issue here is about providing safe environments for learning - then providing local schools would be more popular than the divisive academic route.

*Not a criteria* Really! Back to school for me!

Beano

But let's say I decide St Columbanus is the best school in North Down...

As for Alliance party policy, the reaction within the party and on the doorsteps was such that the next policy document will read very similar to what I've written above - you heard it here first!

Alan,
I know I'm a bit late to reply to your post of 8:18 last night, but here goes.

I didn't confuse ability and opportunity, as you claim, therefore the rest of your post is irrelevant to me. I agree with the rest of your post, but must protest your implication that I don't.

In any talk of exams, we must deal with the fact that some kids are supposed to fail some exams some of the time.

The child's ability is a factor that must be considered. My question still stands - where is that factor accounted for in the report by the Inspector?

The aim of any education system is to attempt to make sure that ability is the only factor. Wouldn't you agree?

A question for you all:
Do we want each child to get exactly the same education, even though it will inevitably be too fast-paced for some and too slow for others? Or do we want every to get the education that suits them?

I'm pretty sure that most people, if not everyone, wants education tailored to each student. That requires selection of some kind. Now there's a very important question around when and how to select, but I think that it's obvious to anyone that selection is the best way to get everyone the best possible education.

So why all the controversy? I think it's because of the awful state of many schools, usually the comprehensives. If they were well disciplined and were able to actually teach the kids then I think the controversy would disappear.

The problem with selection is caused solely by the state of some schools. Fix the schools and the controversy goes away.

Those who are against selection must realise that most of those who are for selection are doing so out of the goodness of their heart, because they genuinely believe it's the best way to educate everyone. We may disagree, but don't conclude that we have improper motives.

I think it's because of the awful state of many schools, usually the comprehensives.

Very few schools in Northern Ireland are truly comprehensive, as most children from the top end of the ability range in the school catchment area go to grammar schools.

slackjaw,
I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean they do GCSE's in a truly comprehensive school, but can do their A-levels in a grammar school?

*The aim of any education system is to attempt to make sure that ability is the only factor. Wouldn't you agree?*

No, the aim of the education system is to strive to increase ability. You give the impression that ability is some kind of determinant of success and failure is therefore understood and nothing need be done about it. Exams require much more than ability, they require application, determination, the absence of illness or distraction . . . .etc.

Ability is not some nonsensical IQ . One day your kids know nothing about subtraction and the next they are teaching you the deconstruction method - that is a paradigm shift as far as the child is concerned. It is also why I prize good teaching so highly.

Every parent knows there are so many things that can impact on a child's ability to learn. It can be an undiagnosed eyesight problem, glue ear or even bullying.

Kids also learn at different speeds and the teacher is continually trying to involve as many kids as possible, while seeking additional support for those who aren't able to keep up. That is where IJP's issue about when you select comes into the equation, but do we finance a new level of intermediate schools and select at 14 instead?

Also, I have to say that I still have not seen anyone tackle the issue of how to deal with the damage caused to young people who are deemed to fail at selection. People have dismissed it as *anecdotal*, other's have said that it is all the parents' fault for pushing their children, or that we need to change society's attitudes. All of these merely avoid the issue. What would people propose to DO about it?

OC

'Comprehensive' does not mean 'not Grammar'. It means that all ranges of ability are catered for. Each school's intake comes from its catchment area.

In most catchment areas, the children (25-35%) who make up the top end of the ability range generally go off to grammar schools while the remainder go to the high school/secondary. This means that the high school/secondary intake is not truly comprehensive, as it does not cater for the full ability range.

The problem with selection is caused solely by the state of some schools. Fix the schools and the controversy goes away.

Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that. Most of the 11 year old children who fail the 11-plus are conscious of the fact that the system considers them a failure. That is not something you can simply remedy by bringing in a Julie Walters-style disciplinarian head.

Also, there are plenty of teachers who do not want to work in these places. Recruitment of the best teachers for these places is a difficulty, as many, given the choice, would prefer to work in a grammar school.

Parental support is fundamental to good discipline. If parents also know that their child is attending a poor school, with little prospect of getting decent GCSEs or progressing to further or higher education, they will either:

(a)have no faith in the teachers or the institution and simply give up;
(b)try and get their child moved to another more reputable school outside the catchment area.
(c)accept the system's judgement that their child is a failure and let him get on with it.

This results in falling numbers in the school, a demoralised staff, and those who are left behind remain so in the knowledge they are considered failures.

*So why all the controversy? I think it's because of the awful state of many schools, usually the comprehensives. If they were well disciplined and were able to actually teach the kids then I think the controversy would disappear.*

Firstly, could you please evidence this?

Secondly, how would you expect to improve the teaching of children when you start off by disparaging those who will be doing the teaching?

Teaching according to the needs of the child is the best way forward, but it can all be done within the same school, there doesn't have to be segregation by 11+ grade.

Alan,
Perhaps 'ability' was the wrong word - it's a pretty generic term. Yes, we do want to increase every child's ability, but we cannot pretend that no child has an upper limit, or that every child has the same upper limit.

That upper limit is going to be defined by a few things that cannot be changed, such as their intelligence, and some things that might be changeable, such as their motivation and environment.

As for selection, is it just selection-of-school that is controversial? If every school was a massive school and was able to cater for every ability by using selection internally for each subject, would that be controversial?

i.e. Who here is against selection of all forms, including schools dividing students internally? And who is against the 11+ but in favour of internal selection?

I don't really know what I'm arguing with! Maybe I should leave it to the experts!

I think I agree with Alan!

I really don't know the details of how the system works with comprehensive/secondary/grammar et cetera. Sorry.

Alan said:
> Secondly, how would you expect to improve the teaching of children when you start off by disparaging those who will be doing the teaching?

I didn't.
I was talking about discipline and other problems (such as form-filling) getting in the way of teaching.

Who here is against selection of all forms, including schools dividing students internally? And who is against the 11+ but in favour of internal selection?

I am against the notion of 'selection', in that I don't think wrong that society should divide children into two distinct categories: 'the select' and, by extension, 'the rest'.

However, I do think that in order for all children to flourish, they need to be challenged academically. I believe that the best way to do this is through streaming within a comprehensive system, as Alan outlined above.

Mick Hall articulated his thoughts on this issue sometime ago in the Blanket :
Shankill Education

in that I don't think wrong = in that I don't think right

Duh!

If academic selection at 11 by schools is wrong is academic selection by universities at 17/18 also wrong?

No.

So academic selection is not a problem but rather when it happens.

So academic selection is not a problem but rather when it happens.

There are other considerations. Some exceedingly good advice from dear old Mr Kipling applies here:

'I keep six honest serving men
(They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who.'

I think that the education system lets down those who are not "normal" and whom have different needs in terms of how they learn. This applies to those with general learning difficulties and those with specific learning difficulties and spans the spectrum of "intelligence".

We need a stytem that can spot these differences and has the flexibility to bed able to get the best out of all the children.