William Kitchen: Academic selection is not ‘evil’ and it is outrageous to say that it is

On November 15, on The Nolan Show, former school principal, CCEA executive and department expert Kathleen O’Hare outlined that she considered academic selection to be “akin to child abuse”. The other elements of her general contribution on the show were no more impressive.

These types of claims are not new. Former children’s commissioner Koulla Yiasouma often used similar language about academic selection, as well as the mental health ambassador, professor Siobhan O’Neill, and Bishop Donal McKeown.

The logic behind these phrases is that the testing process used is a source of great angst for children, who are too young to engage in this high-stakes process, which segregates children into ‘success’ or ‘failure’.

Moreover, the opponents of academic selection condemn the claimed inequality which this ‘segregation’ creates, demonstrated – they suggest – by the low numbers of free-school meal children (taken as an indication of low socio-economic status) entering grammar schools (around 13%) compared to non-selective schools (37%).

Let us unpack this narrative.

An academic test of this nature – what was formerly known as the 11 plus – is not inherently evil, nor can anyone make any reasoned argument that it is akin to child abuse.

Nothing is served by making arguments of this nature other than to contribute negatively to the panic which the opponents of selection say they are determined to remove.

Referring to anything as ‘evil’ or ‘abuse’ – in particular by well-respected people who occupy positions of authority in society – will naturally cause panic and angst.

In reality, there is no doubt that children taking a test at the tender age of 11 will be nervous. Many children will undoubtedly find that process highly stressful, also. This is due – at least in part – to the fact that the test can be used to decide the child’s next steps in their education.

Change is scary, and so the outcome of the test matters, not least, because it can fix a trajectory for the choices available for the child’s next school. Adding to this stress by calling the test ‘evil’ or ‘abuse’ is outrageous.

It can no longer be argued that the test brandishes children as ‘success’ or ‘failure’. This was quite probably true of the first iterations of academic selection – dating back to the 1940s and 1950s.

In those versions of selection, attending a grammar school was a ‘success’ of sorts, insofar as it created better opportunities for children who attended them, and denied children who did not attend them of those same opportunities.

If the opponents of selection are saying that this is still true, then they are saying that the non-selective sector is failing to deliver for its children, and that grammar schools continue to be advantageous because they are ‘better’ than their non-selective counterparts.

On The Nolan Show Nick Mathison MLA – an opponent of academic selection – argued the opposite of this! He argued, in fact, that non-selective schools were just as good as their grammar counterparts, and that all schools should be teaching to all-ability, differentiated classes.

So, on that basis, how is a child attending a non-selective school a ‘failure’? A responsible adult might see past their own views of selection, and remind that child that they will be attending an excellent school regardless of his/her performance in the test.

Alas, that is not what the opponents of selection do. Instead, they use their visceral hatred of selection to say that the test ‘segregates’ the successes from the failures. They do so, contradicting their own arguments.

What, then, of the free-school meals stats which are rolled out to argue that grammar schools are avoiding taking on their share of children from poorer backgrounds?

This argument is poor.

I see this stat as a positive outcome of the test; insofar as it highlights precisely where the ‘heavy lifting’ is most needed, and therefore we can best direct the resources to the schools which need the support to give poorer children a better chance.

In other words, we ought to divert our attention away from the crude free-school meal statistics and towards the creation of high quality schools, in both the grammar and non-selective sectors.

If we remove the test all we have achieved is the perception of equality, rather than actual equality of opportunity – which should be our real goal. This is a foolish mistake.

In closing, to all the high-minded critics of the test, remember that ‘success’ and ‘failure’ are not words which responsible adults will use in this process.

Grammar schools are not the enemy. Rather they are a highly successful sector of Northern Ireland’s education system. We should focus our attention on creating a non-selective sector which is different, but just as successful. Then academic selection would be used to find which of those successful but different types of school will best meet a child’s educational needs.

l Dr William Kitchen is a lecturer at Stranmillis College. He takes an interest in how best to achieve academic excellence in education