NAHT (NI) Responses to DE Consultations
(1)Section 75 Audit of Inequalities and Action Plan
(2) DE Equality Scheme: drawn up in accordance with section 75 NI Act 1998
NOTE: These documents constitute two separate consultation documents to facilitate the requirements of the Equality Commission/ NI 1998 Act. However as they are intricately linked NAHT (NI) is making one combined response. (See further comment in Conclusion)
Summary of Consultations:
1) Section 75 Audit of Inequalities and Action Plan
Equality Commission recommends public authorities review their promotion of equality of opportunity. This Audit aims to assess DE’s progress on equality duties and the action plan details measures to address inequalities. The document gives consideration to a range of available data.
Inequalities identified:
Ø Too many Year 7 pupils transferring with inadequate skills in literacy and numeracy
Ø Too many young people leave school without achieving 5 GCSEs (59 % achieve 5 inc English and Maths)
Priority Groups:
§ Protestant working class boys
§ Children from Irish Traveller community
§ Gay, lesbian and bisexual children/ young people
§ Looked after children
§ Minority ethnic background children
§ Young people with caring responsibilities
§ Children with disabilities
§ Children of new residents/ migrant workers.
The consultation concludes with an “action plan” and targets for improvements.
(2) DE Equality Scheme: drawn up in accordance with section 75 NI Act 1998
Sets out how the DE proposes to fulfil its Section 75 duties.
The scheme document briefly summarises DE policy in promoting equality with its emphasis on raising standards in literacy, numeracy and ICT. Very brief accounts are given of the revised curriculum, development of STEM, ending academic selection, expanding the entitlement framework and promoting equity and a culture of aspiration and expectation.
The creation of the single Education and Skills authority remains on the DE wish-list for reform.
The document outlines DE arrangements for compliance, consultations, public access to information, complaints procedure and a “timetable for the measures proposed”.
NAHT (NI) Response to the Consultation Documents:
(1)Section 75: Audit of Inequalities and Action Plan
(2) DE Equality Scheme: drawn up in accordance with section 75 NI Act 1998
NAHT (NI) is fully committed to the promotion of equality of opportunity for all children and young people and supports the commitment of DE to the processes recommended by The Equality Commission. Recent developments in the Foundation stage curriculum and the development of the revised curriculum across the key stages are welcome advances in ensuring curricular accessibility for more young people.
NAHT (NI) agrees with the identified priority groups and as a professional association will work collaboratively with DE to ensure positive outcomes for these groups.
However NAHT (NI) has a number of concerns with the DE approach to reducing inequality.
School Inspections
Whilst the document acknowledges that the challenge facing schools serving disadvantaged communities may be greater it appears to NAHT (NI) that Inspectors are more critical of such schools and more of them are deemed unsatisfactory. It is unfair that schools in challenging circumstances should be more frequently singled out for criticism and this brings into question the objectivity of the Inspectorate’s judgements. Many inspectors lack experience as school leaders and are unclear as to the complex role of headship. This dearth of leadership experience within the inspectorate does not instil confidence within those who are the subject of inspection.
Funding, Extended Schools, Entitlement framework
The developments of Extended Schools, the Entitlement framework and the creation of Area learning communities are broadly supported by NAHT (NI). However recent announcements by the DE on future expenditure will severely restrict individual schools expanding or even maintaining these programmes.
The DE plan to incorporate Area learning Community expenditure within the Common Funding Formula and simultaneously make cut backs to schools’ budgets will inevitably lead to the curtailment and possible demise of the ALCs.
Early Years
In recent years there has been an expansion of provision so that most 3-4 year olds now are allocated a place. However, NAHT (NI) has concerns at the DE policy direction on Early Years education.
NAHT (NI) concern is that many of these places are not in teacher led nursery schools and are not at a quality level equal to that in statutory nursery schools. ETI Inspection evidence has confirmed the higher quality provision that is available in the Nursery sector. This consultation document makes explicit DE’s intention to increase funding in non-statutory settings- play groups- to a level equivalent to the statutory sector and “address the differences between statutory and non- statutory provision”. Many of these play groups are in the private sector and increasing their funding raises the question of the appropriateness of using Public education funding to increase the profitability of private sector businesses. What logic is it that increases non-teacher led play group funding to a similar cost level to teacher-led nursery provision? Given that the teacher led statutory nursery sector has consistently higher quality outcomes for children it is educationally unsound to expand the non-teacher led play group sector and not to expand the teacher led sector. To equalise the funding base for both forms of provision, whilst one has professional teachers in charge and the other is led by staff with NVQ3 qualifications, is a major mismanagement of scarce resources. Why pay the same for lower quality outcomes? NAHT (NI) believes that there is a potential misuse of public money in the application of this policy and will raise the issue with the Assembly Education Committee for referral to the Public Accounts Committee. If the funding levels of the two types of provision are to be equalised whilst there are hundreds of unemployed qualified teachers in NI then it appears to be a serious misapplication of scarce funds. At best, it is a very inefficient use of public money. It is likely to become a matter of public controversy.
Disability
NAHT (NI) has supported the introduction of SENDO and increased inclusion for young people with disabilities. However it must be recognised that inclusion is not cost neutral and appropriate resources need to be allocated. The long delay in publishing the Special Educational Needs Education review is a cause for concern as promises about resourcing early intervention are not evidenced in schools. A large number of responses, many critical, were submitted to DE and yet many of the contested strategies are being introduced ahead of any final review document. Issues are growing as class sizes get greater and support services are in such a state of flux that they do not provide the expertise to support the pupils. Many services are being moved to advisory rather than pupil intervention and are creating problems for mainstream schools. A mainstream teacher supporting a pupil with SEN may receive one to three visits and then the child is deemed to be included satisfactorily in the school. Principals have suggested that this is more about managing waiting lists than providing a quality education service.
Evidence to support this indictment of our current system is contained in the recently published GTC (2011) survey of teachers’ opinion clearly documents the stress many teachers are under in supporting young people with severe learning needs with inadequate resources.
DE Equality Action Plan
The list of actions outlined are in themselves innocuous and can be supported in principle. The concern to school leaders is that whilst the actions proposed are laudable and desirable the reality is that schools are faced with significant structural and financial problems. Many schools are faced with enormous deficiencies within their building fabric. All schools are facing catastrophic budget cuts, Consequent rises in class sizes and reductions in staffing are creating less than ideal circumstance for improving the educational outcomes for all children. This reality should be kept in mind as DE civil servants, often remote from school reality, create new workloads for schools.
DE Equality Scheme (2nd Consultation document)
There is nothing new, of substance, in this consultation. All of the measures referred to are either subject to other consultations or are already in place. The “timetable for the measures proposed” is only a brief outline of the work schedule of the DE Equality Officer and does not give any timescale for the implementation of the real educational measures. Unsurprisingly there is no timetable for the establishment of ESA!
Conclusion:
School leaders are keen to promote equality of opportunity and will continue to do so wherever possible. Whilst much can be achieved through aligning personal attitudes to equality based values and promoting positive supportive relationships in schools there is also a need to ensure that resources are focussed on the needs of disadvantaged groups. Short term and cheap solutions in early years and in SEN education will not deliver the high quality education system our children deserve. Complete removal of funding for Area learning communities will effectively end the expansion of the entitlement framework.
It is worth noting that the requirements for public consultation on these matters are convoluted and unnecessarily confusing. Separate consultations referring to aspects of the same legislation are due for submission on the same date. Apparatchiks within the Equality bureaucracy may fathom the subtleties of needing two separate lengthy consultation documents on these issues but they are only serving to create unnecessary confusion and increase workload. NAHT (NI) suggests that future consultations on the Equality scheme and its associated action plan be combined.
Aidan Dolan
Education Director NAHT (NI)
October 2011
Tel: 02890776633
NAHT(NI)
Carnmoney House
Edgewater Office Park
Belfast
BT3 9JQ
4