Dr William H Kitchen: Campaign against academic selection looks set to continue

The Independent Review of Education in Northern Ireland commenced in October 2021, as part of the aptly – if somewhat ironically – named New Decade New Approach. Broadly speaking, we were to expect a review of education in Northern Ireland which might herald a new dawn, with fresh thinking underpinned by robust research findings.

The DUP-appointed panel released its Interim Report on 12/10/22. A troubling reality lurked beneath the surface, found on page nine of the report. In addition to the work undertaken by the panel, there were additional literature reviews undertaken, one of which focused on the “Impacts of academic selection in Northern Ireland”. This review into academic selection was undertaken by a research company called “Pivotal”, presumably to give an even greater sense of independence. The panel does not outline in its Interim Report why, for example, it did not conduct a literature review on curriculum design and efficacy, which might well have been expected given Dr Bloomer’s (the panel chair) own commitments to focus on curriculum and assessment. I will return to this later in the article.

In this uninspiring ‘literature review’, we see a raft of misguided arguments, based on a selective literature base, underpinned by the same tired, old arguments, and seemingly ignorant of the arguments for academic selection. Whilst Mansfield (2019) is cited as the pro-selection argument (as it often is), it is quickly (and weakly) rebutted and consigned to a mere footnote.

The failure to undertake a sound literature review is captured in the argument that: “In contrast to the argument that selection enables social mobility, evidence shows that the selective system prevents children from different socio-economic backgrounds and different academic abilities learning together. Academic selection may act as a structural barrier to equity (Shewbridge, et al., 2014, P.20) with the transfer tests acting as a social sorting mechanism (Wilson, 2016, P.117).”

The authors of the review conclude: “In summary, there is limited evidence to support the argument that grammar schools are a significant tool for social mobility. Whilst some children from less privileged backgrounds may succeed in accessing a grammar school, high quality education should be accessible to all children. In fact, academic selection poses a structural challenge to equity in Northern Ireland, as those children who attend grammar schools are more likely to achieve better academic attainments than those who do not, and we know that children from better-off backgrounds are much more likely to attend grammar schools.”

In this, they are simply wrong. First, the final concluding sentence which ties together (wrongly) some tentative multivariate relationship between grammar school attendance, affluence, and academic performance is a simple error in analysis of the variables at play in that equation. It should worry us greatly that such rudimentary analysis is undertaken incorrectly. Moreover, in a seminal work by Heath, Ermisch and Gallie (2005), the review of a plethora of evidence drew the following conclusions: “… the evidence suggests that reforms designed to reduce inequalities of opportunity have in practice been rather ineffectual in that respect.” They also found that: “The main conclusion of the sociological research must be that much of this reform activity, such as the introduction of comprehensive schooling, has been ineffectual in reducing social inequalities in outcomes.” In other words: the removal of academic selection had zero impact in terms of narrowing the social inequalities which were prevalent at a societal level.

The reader should be drawn at this stage to ponder precisely why a research agency, charged with reviewing all the available literature, might conclude that there is “limited evidence” to support the continued use of selection in Northern Ireland. This literature is not difficult to find! More worryingly, I have personally presented this evidence to the previous and current Education Ministers and their officials, most recently in November 2021. I similarly provided this evidence as part of a TUV submission to the Independent Panel. Why is it being ignored?

Finally, to return to one concluding remark. The choice of literature reviews is unsurprising, but worrying. I posed the question earlier in this article as to why a literature review had not been undertaken into the tin pot curriculum that we continue to use in Northern Ireland. Perhaps because if they had undertaken such a search, they would have found the real culprit of educational inequality and underachievement in NI.

Indeed, the Northern Ireland Curriculum mirrors the Scottish “Curriculum for Excellence” in terms of its structure and design, which has recently been described as “the betrayal of a whole generation” because of “what it gets children to learn. It belongs to a strand of curricular thinking known as constructivism.” This is the same for Northern Ireland. I also presented this evidence to the current Education Minister and her officials, when I presented the conclusion, opined by eminent Harvard scholar Jean Chall: “Whenever the students were identified as coming from families of low socioeconomic status, they achieved higher levels when they received a more formal, traditional education. ... The teacher-centred approach was also more effective for students with learning disabilities at all social levels.”

Unfortunately, this evidence continues to be overlooked. The obsession with the removal of academic selection in Northern Ireland looks set to continue. Its opponents will continue to conspire towards its ultimate removal, not because of anything as honourable as evidence. New Decade, New Approach? I think not.

Dr William H Kitchen is an academic and author, with expertise in mathematics education, educational philosophy, pedagogy, curriculum design, and assessment theory.