Photosales
niJobfinder
niCarfinder
Home Delivery
Propertynews
Ruane: 90% in Shankill not bound for grammars
Saturday, 28 March 2009
enlargeSchool Transfer Poll
Which of the following options would you support?
Which of the following options would you support?
Which of the following options would you support?
| A selective test for two years to give time for political consensus to be reached |
 42% |
| Bilateral schools (up to 35% of pupils at each school selected on academic ability). |
 5% |
| No academic selection at 11 but can be an option for schools at age 14 |
23% |
| Phasing out of academic selection over three years to create a comprehensive system |
12% |
| An unregulated education system - schools can opt to set their own entrance tests |
18% |
Less than 10% of children in primary schools in Belfast's Shankill Road area transferred to grammar school this year after sitting the 11 Plus, Education Minister Caitriona Ruane has revealed.
In the more affluent Malone Road area the rate shot up to 91%, she said.
Mounting a fresh defence of her decision to scrap the exam she said academic selection was an inappropriate and inadequate approach to education.
The huge difference in the more privileged areas compared to the less affluent parts of the city were highlighted by the minister in an address to the Ulster Teachers' union annual conference in Newcastle, Co Down.
She said for the 2008/09 admissions 77 out of 135 children in Holywood's four primary schools transferred to grammar school - 57%.
The minister added: "In the seven primary schools serving the Malone Road area, 214 out of 234 transferred into grammar school (91%). In the two primary schools serving the Stranmillis area 62 out of 93 transferred into a grammar school (67%)."
However, she said, in the three schools largely serving the Sandy Row area, 11 out of 79 pupils moved on into a grammar school - 14%.
Ms Ruane added: "In the three primary schools largely serving the Shankill it was 10 out of 104 (10%). In the seven schools serving the Falls it was 49 out of 284 (17%)."
She said: "These appalling figures are clear indicators of profound and damaging inequality. We need a system that delivers for all our children."
- Text Size
Comments
46 Comments
I agree with Andy, has Ruane forgotten that North Belfast is one of the most socially and economically deprived areas in Northern Ireland. Being a teacher who works in the upper shankill I would urge Ruane to come into our school and to see the learning that takes place. Do people not realise that learning and achievement is not always based on academic achievement? Teachers in our area are not given enough credit or support for the work and progress that we make with our children and their families.
Posted by Rachael | 15.04.09, 18:03 GMT
Exasperated, those terms are awful, and I do not agree with them at all. However, people's ignorance is not a reason to abolish academic selection. However, in William's case he was probably just stating fact - he lives near ear-ringed tracksuit wearers. If they have ear-rings and wear tracksuits, then who are we to condemn his statement?
What "all research"? You haven't mentioned any. I'll point you in the direction of research carried out by the London School of Economics showing that a grammar school system is good for social mobility.
Please don't tarnish us with having "contempt". I want the bright children to be stretched. I want the less academic children to be able to get the additional teaching support they need. I don't want the more academic children getting bullied because they are "nerds". I want more people to pass their exams (NI has higher pass rate than England and Wales). Is that contempt? I would argue that it isn't.
Posted by David | 05.04.09, 14:44 GMT
P6 parent | 01.04.09, 12:59
'If you scratch a pro- 11 pluser hard enough you will usually find underneath all their waffle the disturbing prejudice.'
So according to P6 parent anyone who genuinely supports academic selection is usually waffling and is usually prejudiced! This is frankly absurd.
PS People are stupid, a test paper can not be described as stupid.
Posted by T J McClean | 03.04.09, 08:59 GMT
If you scratch a pro- 11 pluser hard enough you will usually find underneath all their waffle the disturbing prejudice exemplified by William. They appear unable to face up to the fact that academic selection at age 11 discriminates against children in more socially disadvantaged groups and that approx 40% of kids did not even sit the exam. The idea that you can somehow accurately measure innate ability with some stupid test paper given to a kid at age 11, even if you wanted to, is frankly absurd.
End selection now!
Posted by P6 parent | 01.04.09, 12:59 GMT
David all the research shows that your wonderful selective system has presided over a decline in social mobility within Northern Ireland.
Are you happy about the language used by some posters here when the speak of children as ‘losers’ etc? Do you take comfort in portraying the disadvantaged as ‘ear ringed track suit wearers’ who ’sit at home on their benefits’ and are ‘lazy benefit sponges’.
Once upon a time we had a supportive culture, where people cared for one another and promoted the common good. Today we have Maggies children, interested only in their own selfish advancement with a sneering disregard for those they feel beneath them.
Contempt for ones fellow citizen is never attractive William, Gordon and David!
Posted by Exasperated | 30.03.09, 22:26 GMT
William, do not attempt to reason with Exasperated, who believes all supporters of academic selection do so because they consider their children "above" other children. How strange, then, that Exasperated does not consider that academic selection actually PROMOTES social class mixing, as it does not let money become the determining factor for school choice - (s)he appears to think a comprehensive system will increase social mobility, which is, quite frankly, laughable.
Posted by David | 30.03.09, 21:13 GMT
William thank you for reinforcing my point.
Step up N.I. society and take a bow. I can't wait to see what brave future attitudes like this will create.
Posted by Exasperated | 30.03.09, 20:51 GMT
Exasperated - Why should I not want my child to mix with those beneath him? My son is a lot brighter than the ear ringed track suit wearers that live in our area, but these proposals will bring him down to their level. Both my wife and I have been through the system and have a third level education and wish our children to have the same. It is not our problem that the parents of these children do not have the same hopes and wishes that we do so why should our son suffer. Our parents had the same wishes for us and this is how we got to where we are today.
Posted by William | 30.03.09, 19:14 GMT
Why is the Minister talking down our non-selective schools. Surely the 90% of children from the Shankill who don't go to a Grammar school - go instead to a perfectly good all-ability school? If the Minister feels that our all-ability schools are somehow second rate she should say so - or provide the carrots and sticks to improve them.
Alas, it's got little to do with the schools anyway. How many parents from the Shankill turn up at parent-teacher evenings, encourage a learning culture at home, push their kids towards the professions?
Posted by RS | 30.03.09, 18:41 GMT
The stark reality is that Sinn Fein have long made it their agenda to destroy the education system here - it was the best model in the United Kingdom...so there's your reason.
Get this destructive female and her ilk away from our children and their futures!
Grammar schools for gifted children must remain at all costs!!
Posted by Merry | 30.03.09, 17:23 GMT
Good to see that most posters here have the right idea - blaming this statistic on academic selection is ridiculous. I've no idea how she expects people to swallow that.
Helen: your point is valid, but simply indicates that some primary schools must be improved - that's no reason to scrap academic selection.
Posted by David | 30.03.09, 17:19 GMT
I wonder what the statistics are for GCSE’s/A levels and Degrees between these two areas, probably similar. I’m no expert (neither is the minister) but would we not need to identify the reason why they aren’t able to do this or any other test is because their parents sit at home on their benefits and gives the children no role models or ambition to do well, the statistic I want to see is the number parents on benefits whose children want to pass the 11+, I guess pretty small, heres an ideal while you lazy benefit sponges are laying about the house why don’t take 5 minutes during the adverts of Jeremy Kyle and check if your child can read or write.
Posted by Gordon | 30.03.09, 17:19 GMT
It seems that Caitriona Ruane replies to articles by Robert McCartney in the Belfast Telegraph without actually reading them. If she had actually read Mr McCartney's most recent article then she would have discovered that the reason for poor attainment in the 11-plus transfer test for Shankill pupils stems from the fact that they are not entered for the test.
Even the Education Minister must comprehend that "if you're not in, you can't win".
The manipulation of statistics by the Department of Education has consistently resulted in counterproductive effects.
The Minister and her advisors are not fit for purpose.
Posted by parental alliance for choice in education | 30.03.09, 17:01 GMT
social/economic issues are the reason for these statistics, not the 11+ itself. Thats like blaming the 11+ for the high numbers of unemployed in these areas. Ruane is single handedly destroying our education system.
Posted by andy | 30.03.09, 12:31 GMT
Hot of the press! - The Catholic schools NICCE have not ruled out academic selection, they suggest 11 is too early and the previous system too rigid. They are unable to endorse Transfer 2012 as it currently stands, welcoming the opportunity for further discussion it provides. The Minister's dogma and take it or leave approach now stands alone. Surely now she will tender her long overdue resignation.
Posted by Mark | 30.03.09, 12:29 GMT
This statistic has nothing to do with academic selection, these kids are failed long before that, the inequality starts the day they are born. Sort out the primaries prioritising funding to those most in need, supporting parents and guardians in getting these kids to school and assisting learning. Promote a pride in learning in the primaries in these suffering areas. The anti-selection crusade the minister is on will not improve the chances of these kids, only reduce standards overall.
Posted by Mark | 30.03.09, 10:53 GMT
T J - you're right and very similar to one of the first posts on this debate by Concerned and Dismayed P6 parent, who used their own experience. The problem starts long before the pupils reach the age of doing 11 plus - re-address this first. At the moment pupils from these backgrounds who have committed parents espousing the benefits of education and encouraging their offspring to enjoy learning -will have done well under the old 11 plus system and may have got to local grammar schools - they acted as role models for others within their community. The 11 plus may have had faults - but using the case of the Shankhill as a reason for scrapping the 11 plus is nonsense. Ms Ruane, you are throwing this current Year of P6s to the lions - shame on you. All P6 parents should demand 'action and answers' not this guidance she is provided. Stop this mess now.
Posted by Cross P6 Parent | 30.03.09, 10:48 GMT
why has the minister got the bone between her teeth about children in sandy row,shankill,falls rd not transfering to grammar schools. how many of these children want to go to a grammar school.does she not realise there is a social stigma concerning grammar schools in these areas for years and it is going to take years to change this mindset!
Posted by p6 parent | 30.03.09, 10:27 GMT
'Ruane: 90% in Shankill not bound for grammars.'
This is not the fault of an exam that offers all candidates the same chance of passing. It is not the fault of the Grammars either. In ancient times when a king received bad news he often angrily placed the blame on the messenger and unfairly killed him. This is what Mrs Ruane is doing.
Low Primary school results may reflect lack of parental involvement, dysfunctional home background, poor pupil motivation to do well or weak pupil ability. Often a determined work ethic and educational ethos is missing at home. Due to such an upbringing many children will not see the value of education. They see parents managing very well out of the Benefit System where few male family members have ever been in long term employment. Getting rid of academic selection solves nothing but only creates bigger problems.
Posted by T J McClean | 30.03.09, 09:41 GMT
Aha now we can see the real purpose of selection! Posters here are using the most insulting and defamatory language about 10 and 11 year old children. Referring to any child as 'garbage' 'loser' 'underachiever' who only wish to wilfully 'hold back' the posters 'smart' kids provides a valuable insight into Northern Ireland's psyche.
You just don’t want your children to mix with those beneath you!
If this attitude is the result of the grammar school system posters support the sooner it is dismantled and replaced with something better the better.
You would not wish your children to be spoken of like this : for shame!
Posted by Exasperated | 30.03.09, 09:17 GMT
46 Comments