I wonder if there's a correspondingly large percentage of LOW grades in NI's schools (as would be traditionally expected in a grammar school system). It'd be very interesting to see.

As for the switch to comprehensives. I heard that Peter Hain has been given a lot of power to do what he wants as the assembly is not up and running (sort of like Paddy Ashdown's 'viceroyship' in the Balkans. I don't approve of such a huge policy shift being implemented by someone who wasn't elected by the people of NI.

On what basis do you make such a remark? What evidence can you offer that the comprehensive system has failed?

The predominantly comprehensive system in the UK produces better overall results than mainly segregated and selective Germany. It is interesting to note that Finland, which has almost no differences between schools and some of the lowest social inequalities in the developed world, has by far the best reading results of any country. Over 25% of Finnish sixteen year olds whose parents have the lowest-status jobs have literacy levels as high as the average UK pupil.

The logic therefore would be to extend the comprehensive system by removing selection in the public sector altogether. New Labour's education mantra in its first term `standards not structures' struck a chord with many. `Focus on quality of the provision for the 95% who attend non-selective schools as opposed to the minority who attend the grammar schools' we were told. But is now not the time to also address the archaic and somewhat bizarre school structures in Britain? Six years later and with standards rising is now not the moment to call time on the grammar system? The Catholic grammar schools that still exist in England have very low numbers of socially disadvantaged children. The prominence of highly selective Catholic schools at the top of local league tables, or in annual lists of the country's 'best' schools, proves nothing except that academically able children usually do well in examinations. It is not true that selective local systems push up standards in all schools. A value-added analysis comparing selective and non-selective LEAs shows that where schools in an area are organised on selective lines (as in 15 of the 150 local authorities) the overall impact is to depress the educational performance of these communities as a whole. Grammar schools may do well for the able children they select, but the evidence indicates that the performance of the other 75 percent is lower than in non-selective systems. It points to a significant depression of achievement by a lowering of standards of around two to three percentage points in those communities where selection at the age of eleven is still the norm.

It is widely assumed that academically able children do better in selective schools while children of average and below average ability do better in non-selective schools. In short, a trade-off may have to be made, one, which will reflect the priority given to the few, or the many. Nevertheless the DfES statistical comparison of the GCSE and GNVQ results of all grammar school pupils with those of the top 25% (of 'grammar school ability') in comprehensive schools indicated that the comprehensive schools had done slightly better overall. There is also evidence that fully comprehensive systems reduce the gaps in attainment between children of different abilities and between children from different social class backgrounds.

In 2002 almost half of all 15-16 year olds in maintained schools achieved five or more 'higher passes' at the end of compulsory schooling. This is the hurdle set in the past for only those attending grammar schools, one which many, even of that selected minority, failed to surmount. In 1970, 47% of pupils left secondary school with no qualifications; in 2002 that figure was down to 4% Between 1989 and 1999, the percentage of 16-18 year olds in full time education rose from 37.6 to 75.4. In 1971-72 14% of under 21 year olds entered higher education, in 2001-2002 36% entered. A third of the age group entering higher education is an aim which would have seemed impossibly ambitious a generation ago. Given that expenditure on education did not increase in real terms between the mid-1970s and the late-1990s this remarkable increase in productivity as measured by qualifications is attributable, in large part, to the removal of the barrier of the 11-plus for some four-fifths of the population.

The familiar claim that Catholic grammar schools offer an 'escape from poverty' to clever children otherwise denied real educational opportunity, has relied heavily on highlighting individual successes without establishing how representative they are. In the past, the most academically selective schools were also the most socially selective. The surviving Catholic grammar schools are in the main schools for the middle-classes. In England in 2002, the proportion of children eligible for free school meals (an imperfect but commonly used indicator of social disadvantage) was much lower in selective than in non-selective schools in every one of the 36 Local Authorities which retain at least some grammar schools. In the 15 LEAs with around 20% or more of their pupils in grammar schools, the average percentage of children eligible for free school meals in those schools was 2.3% compared with an English average of 17.1%. In some areas of England it is reasonable to regard comprehensive schooling not as a 'failed experiment' but as an experiment which has not yet been tried. Assertions that 'selection works' rely heavily on seeing only the winners in that sifting process. A modern economy relies on a 'learning society', which is rooted in a much more ambitious and inclusive strategy.

Since comprehensive education was introduced, barriers to achievement for many young people have been removed. The annual government statistics of school attainment, examination results, and participation in further and higher education offer clear evidence of a 'levelling-up' over the last 25 years. Catholic grammar schools have played virtually no part in this `levelling-up'; they (Catholic grammar schools) do not serve the poor and the marginalised in our society (if anything they create division and resentment). What is needed is a mature, open and honest debate about the type of educational system our Church should support and indeed help shape in the twenty-first century. Should it be an inclusive, comprehensive system that intrinsically values and caters for all pupils regardless of their economic or social capital? Or should it be a two tier, elitist system that perpetuates privilege, does not help promote the common good and is contrary to the message of the gospel?

Hain has to make big changes, sweeping reforms and long-term decisions so he can turn around to the DUP and say "Look, you should be making these decisions - so get back to the table". If he did nothing, the current standoff would be indefinite, there would be nothing motivating the DUP to talk.

One exam can determine whether a child goes to a good school or a bad one. What if a child went to a bad primary school, had a difficult home life or wasn't simply interested in study at the age of 11? Surely, one exam shouldn't define their educational future. Furthermore, children mentally develop at different rates, thus their aptitude at the age of 11 hardly represents their true potential. Branding them clever or thick at the age of eleven is hardly a fair way to conduct education policy.

In most comprehensive schools setting is used, which allows students to move up and down sets according to their abilities and needs.

Northern Ireland has few if any private schools. There is no need. The education system has evolved into a fluid, dynamic enabler of improving the educational standards of all children. Those who fail the 11-plus are not sent to sink schools to fester. The high schools and secondary schools do achieve good results and educate their pupils to a high level. Those that excelled in these schools could transfer to Grammar schools at a later stage if they wished and were able. The Grammar schools are there to push the more academically-able to even greater heights.

Many people disliked the 11-plus because they saw it as one exam that decided the rest of your life. That may have been the case 30 years ago, but as I have just described a much more fluid environment exists now. The exam is not the be-all and end-all. It may not be the best indicator of aptitude, but it is certainly better than the system of education which has damaged the aspirations and hopes of millions in England. Academic selection does work in allowing those that are more academically able to succeed at their chosen field.

Essentially, NI's fantastic schooling system puts England's into the shade. This is a piece of facist legislation, not approved by parliament in Westminster or in Stormont. It is designed to pull down NI's schooling system to make England look better. NI has higher grades at GCSE and A-level than the rest of the UK. At the bottom-end of the spectrum the levels of pass rates are within the standard deviation of the rest of the UK. Statistically, those who are less academically able do as well as their peers in the rest of the UK. Those who are more academically able outshine their peers in the rest of the UK. Rather than bring everyone down the government should bring in legislation to pull up those at the bottom and allow them to flourish. The abolishment of Grammar schools in NI and the removal of academic selection WILL NOT DO THIS.

'A's in England and Wales: 24.4% & 23.9% respectively
'A's in NI: 32.4% (overall level of passes was also greater in NI than rest of UK)

NI outperforming greatly here.

GCSE results

A*-C in England and Wales: 62.1% and 62.3% respectively
A*-C in NI: 71.7%

Thus if one estimates that 15% of results in England are selective  (church, grammar and private selectives) and 35% in NI (and selective schools seem to, on average score around 90% A*-C in England, around 95% in NI) then one can work out that non-selective state schools in England score on average 57.2% and in NI they score 59.2%. That is 57.2% of pupils sitting their GCSEs in a non-selective school in England got 5 or more A*-C, whereas 59.2% of pupils in NI scored 5 or more A*-C. (Marginally higher, even though 20% more of the brightest kids have gone to a selective establishment- if I adjust this figure to create parity betwwen the number of children in selective to non-selective schools in NI to England the percentage would be 67.6%.)

Using the latest figures, how then can anyone say NIs non-selective schools are worse than non-selectives in England? I have now shown that this year they are in fact better. Any reason for getting rid of selection in NI? No? Thought not. It is a bloody stupid idea. Heaven forbid something that actually works should be allowed to continue.