I have recently written here about Northern Ireland’s discriminatory system of academic selection. Using the 2016 Northern Ireland Assembly Research and Information Service Briefing Note titled Academic selection: a brief overview I presented evidence which shows that the current system unfairly discriminates against children from poorer backgrounds. 

Following publication of the article I sent a link of the piece to five of our political parties, the DUP, Sinn Féin, SDLP, Alliance, Green and in addition the Conservative Party. Both the Conservative party and the DUP did not respond to my request for comment. I also asked four randomly selected Grammar schools for comment. None responded to my request.

Before I give an overview of their comments, Sinn Féin Education Spokesperson Karen Mullan MLA helpfully suggested an important report by Queen’s University titled Investigating Links in Achievement and Deprivation. The study investigated seven Ward areas that fall within the top 20% of high deprivation across Northern Ireland. These wards are Whiterock, The Diamond, Woodstock, Duncairn, Rosemount, Dunclug and Tullycarnet. The report concluded that the current system of academic selection has a “negative impact in terms of confidence levels and self-esteem of those pupils who fail or do not sit the transfer test” and that pupils are deprived “in the non-grammar sector of positive (peer) role models.” The current system also “favours those parents with the means to pay for private tuition” thus immediately discriminating against families from deprived backgrounds

To put the issue of deprivation in context, the latest figures show that 370,000 people in Northern Ireland live in poverty with 80% of the most deprived areas identifying as ‘Catholic’. Across NI 110,000 children, 220,000 working-age adults and 40,000 pensioners are currently facing some form of poverty. Proportionally Northern Ireland has one of the highest working age poverty levels in the UK, leaving childless working-age adults at a higher risk of poverty than ten years ago. Northern Ireland also has lower employment than elsewhere, with employment being “a major factor affecting poverty rates.” In addition one in ten households in the poorest fifth in Northern Ireland is currently facing some kind of debt problem. The gap in academic achievement between “richer and poorer children has narrowed slightly but remains very large.” There are worryingly “more people with no qualifications and fewer people with higher-level qualifications in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the UK.”

Yet, other than London and Aberdeen there are more multimillionaires in Belfast than anywhere else in the UK. ‘Peace’ has been good for business. The pincer movement of peace and prosperity attracted significant foreign investment. The city rebranded as “open for business,” pursued an aggressive economic neoliberalism. But the gap between rich and poor has increased. I sometimes wonder if the prosperity of peace has numbed us (myself included) to the vast chasm of inequality in our city. We are geographically neighbours but economically alienated. The sociologist Sharon Zorkin calls this “pacification by cappuccino.” 

Or put another way, in the forward to the excellent book Struggle or Starve by Sean Mitchell, Brian Kelly describes post-conflict Belfast, the “heartland of industrial capitalism in Ireland” as having offered up “whimsical solutions to enduring antagonism” that in recent years has seen the cities promoters seeking “the solution to sectarianism in ice hockey, tall ships, and Twitter.” This he describes as “farcical stuff.” What the peace process has created is what Mitchell calls a “benign apartheid” leaving us with a society “in which the two main communities coexist in isolation from one another — and the message from the government is that the rest of us should learn to live with it.” 150 years ago Karl Marx with all the prescience of the asphalt-prophet that he was called this alienation. Alienation from labour; each other; ourselves and nature. This is not the place for a detailed discussion of what Marx meant but alienation is a helpful way of formulating one of the primary effects of inequality and in particular the issue of selective education.

Put simply: there are children across our nation who, as a direct result of a political policy are being alienated from the right to equal education. This is putting it simply, but the discussion around selective education is part of a complex ecosystem of inequality. It is — to state the obvious — not THE solution; there isn’t one, but it is a significant contributing factor to the vast chasm of inequality that exists in our nation.

The current evidence points to the system of academic selection being unfair and discriminatory. I put this evidence to the education spokespersons from the DUP, Sinn Féin, SDLP, Alliance Party and Green Party and the press office of the Conservative Party; here’s what they said.

Sinn Féin Education Spokesperson Karen Mullan MLA said that, “Sinn Féin is opposed to academic selection” reminding me that it was Sinn Féin Education Minister, Martin McGuinness, who abolished the 11 Plus transfer test in line with established international best practice and evidence. Mullan says that “the unregulated transfer tests still run by some schools continue to drive educational inequality and are a barrier to parental choice.” To replace academic selection Sinn Féin propose “a publicly-funded education system” which gives the “same opportunities and support to all children, not just a select few. These tests only serve to perpetuate inequality and disadvantage.”

Education spokesperson for the SDLP Colin McGrath told me that “at its core, academic selection provides those who pass a given test on a given day, the opportunity to access an education that is denied to others and that is inherently unfair. We need to consider a fairer process that encapsulates academic ability other than a maximum of three, one hourly tests in some instances and a maximum of two tests in others.” The evidence, he suggests, is pointing to non-selective schools doing increasingly well. “Until there is an overhaul of this selective system, we must do all we can to encourage this trend and ensure children who do not meet the criteria for grammar schools are given every opportunity to succeed.”

Leader of The Green Party NI, Steven Agnew, told me that the party is “opposed to academic selection” and “regards the current system as unfair” with evidence showing “that it is not in the best interests of children. The best school systems in the world do not use academic selection.” Schools, says Agnew, must be “inclusive of all and end the injustice of academic selection.”

Chris Lyttle, the education spokesperson from the Alliance party, who was instrumental in the commissioning of the 2016 academic selection paper told me that, “academic selection is a flawed and exclusionary approach to education. The refusal of the former Education Minister to introduce a fairer, more appropriate post-primary transfer process amounts to an ideological rejection of mounting evidence linking educational disadvantage and academic selection. Educational progression should be based on the development of a pupil’s individual personality, ability and potential, and not a one-off high-stakes test at such an early age. All pupils should have equal access to the widest possible curricular and extra-curricular opportunities.”

Both the Conservative party and the DUP did not respond to my request for comment. 

The DUP’s most recent statement on the issue can be found on their website. The statement, in contrast to the evidence presented above, is titled Every Child with the Opportunity to Succeed. The statement says that the DUP maintains their “support for academic selection and wish to see a transfer process that is accessible and straightforward for children and parents.” Their justification for this is the marginally better A*-C grade GCSE results in NI compared to England (67% to 56%). They contend that “these outcomes are a crucial factor in maintaining and promoting social mobility.” What isn’t considered is that for 79% of children availing of free school meals, social mobility is currently preventing them from having equal education opportunities and succeeding. Their justification for maintaining academic selection is thus the rather farcical circular argument of maintaining social mobility for those who are already socially mobile. Those who are not socially mobile — which according to the statistics above are mostly children who live in ‘catholic’ areas — remain alienated. How this marries with the fourth of the DUP’s “five key priorities” — “raising the standards of education for everyone” is a mystery.

You may also be interested in reading David’s original piece, ‘Could do better: It’s time to abolish academic selection’