Education is a key institute that facilitates individuals to fulfil their potential (Baldock et al,
2012). Yet, the education system is not an equal playing field for all. The move from elite to
mass to universal education has improved its accessibility but not irradicated inequalities
(Trow, 1972; Midgley et al,2019). Children from lower socioeconomic background's (SB) are
less likely than their wealthier peers to obtain good examination results (Dunstan, 2020). This
has created attainment gaps (AG) between the least and most affluent pupils, particularly at
GCSE level. However, inequalities in education and attainment are not a recent phenomenon.
It has long been a key issue dating back to the 1870s when education was largely limited to
those from middle and upper classes (Bochel et al, 2009). Since then, the government has
attempted to resolve issues relating to inequality, unequal access to education and subsequent
underachievement through the implementation of a range of policies. Thus, throughout this
assignment, I will review the Every School a Good School: A policy for School Improvement
(ESaGSP) which is one of the Department of Education's (DE) central policy responses to
combatting educational underachievement in Northern Ireland (NI).
Firstly, regarding academic performance and educational attainment, students from NI
outperform their peers across the rest of the UK (McGuinness,2012). The most recent
statistics from 2018/19 show that "72.8% of Year 12 pupils from NI achieved five or more
GCSEs at grades A*-C including English and Maths (EaM)" (DoE, 2019a). This is in
comparison with 53.5% in England and 53.8% in Wales (DoE 2020c; DoE,2019b). Due to
these achievement levels, the education system in NI has been framed as one of the
'best'(AgendaNI, 2017). However, the reality is that while those from the top end of the
academic spectrum perform well, evidence shows that those from the bottom end appear to be
widely underperforming (McGuinness,2012). Martin (2016) outlines that these "relatively
large differences are known as the 'long tail' and is the difference between very high and very
low performance". According to OECD reports, NI has one of the most unequal patterns of
attainment (Shewbridge, C. et al,2014).
One explanation for the differing attainment levels (AL) is partly due to the structure of postprimary schooling. Unlike much of the UK, where educational 'streaming' and grammar
schools (GS) have been largely reformed and phased out across most parts of the UK – in
favour of comprehensive schools- NI has retained academic selection (Chitty, 2014).
Consequently, the vast majority of high-performance levels stem from pupils attending GS,
with 94.3% of GS pupils attaining five or more GCSE's, including EaM compared to only
54.8% of non-GS students (DoE, 2019a). This difference in patterns of achievement has been
widely framed as the 'GS effect' (Gallagher and Smith, 2000). That is, that the most important
factor which influenced attainment outcomes at GCSE level was whether an individual
attended a GS or not (Henderson et al, 2020).
This is especially concerning given that a student's SB is found to be a key mediator between
their access to and success within the transfer exams, as well as subsequent placement in a GS
(Henderson et al, 2020; Bochel et al, 2009). Gallagher and Smith (2000) found that pupils
entering GS are more likely to come from a more affluent background in comparison to pupils
entering non-selective schools (NSS). Evidence also demonstrates that disadvantaged pupils –
as measured through their entitlement of Free School Meals (FSM)- are grossly
underrepresented in GS's (Borooah and Knox, 2015). For example, in 2018-2019, only 14.1%
of all pupils entitled to FSM attended a GS in comparison to 85.9% of their FSM peers who
attended a non-grammar (DoE, 2019). This highlights significant socioeconomic differences
among the student make up within GS's and secondary schools.
Furthermore, socially disadvantaged pupils, who attend a non-GS, represent a larger portion
of those who underperform and have low educational attainment (Burns et al, 2015). For
instance, in 2018/19, only 44.0% of non-GS pupils entitled to FSM achieved five or more
GCSEs, including EaM against 95.5% of non-FSM entitled pupils that attended a GS (DoE,
2019a). These contrasting figures highlight that performance and attainment standards, and
outcomes are hugely variable depending on the school a pupil attends and their SB. Therefore,
indicating that performance and access inequalities exist across the education sector which
results in performance gaps (Borooah and Knox, 2014).
In response to tackling this, the DE published ESaGSP in 2009 which seeks to promote school
improvement and help address underachievement (Perry, 2010). The policy centres around
improving standards and promoting equality within schools which will help teachers assist
pupils to overcome barriers to their learning thus positively impact upon educational
outcomes and achievements (ESaGS, 2009). At the core of the policy is continuous selfevaluation, using key information such as performance data which in turn will lead to
sustained self-improvement (ESGS, 2010). A key objective within the ESaGsP is raising
standards in schools, particularly within those in disadvantaged areas that are not performing
as well as they might be expected (Perry, 2010).
Chapman and Sammons (2013) argue that school self-evaluation can be a fundamental force
in achieving school improvement and helping to combat the issue of underachievement. Selfevaluation enables schools to identify their strengths and weakness and tackle "development
rigorously to improve the quality of provision that pupils receive and the standards they
achieve" (Thornley, 2014, p.3). A key element of the ESaGS is that schools should help
students to achieve their full potential (ESaGS, 2009). To facilitate this, schools must be
aware of how well pupils are doing and progressing. Carrying out self-evaluation enables
schools to track the development and academic progress of pupils, thus helping to identify
potential problems early on. This in turn will enable schools to act quickly to counteract
underachievement (Ofsted, 2006). Within this approach, teachers and school management
teams are reflective practitioners who constantly reflect on the quality of practice and how
they can work towards improving it for the betterment of students and ensure every pupil is
offered a high-quality education, not just those who attend a GS.
In respect to this, it is evident that the ESaGSP, through its implementation of continuous
self-evaluation has led to an increase in standards within schools which has consequently
contributed to the improvement of AL at GCSE level. Using the DE examination performance
bulletin data as the main indicator of success, statistics show that there has been year on year
improvement and increase in AL for all year 12 pupils since its implementation in 2009. For
example, in 2008-2009 only 57.3% of all year 12 pupils achieved five GCSES, including
EaM. By 2010-2011 this increased to 60.1%, exceeding the 55% milestone target the policy
set back when it was first published. AL has continued to increase every year since then and
by 2018-2019, 72% of all year 12 students had achieved this outcome – surpassing the
policies long-term target of 70% by 2020- a year early (EsaGs, 2009; DoE, 2019a).
However, while self-evaluation can be an extremely valuable tool to help schools to identify
weaknesses that may be contributing to educational underperformance among students,
McGuinness (2012), states that most post-primary schools across NI adopt less of a 'bottomup approach to self-evaluation. Instead, much more of a 'top-down' system that focuses
heavily on prescribed indicators such as performance data as opposed to self-determined
objectives are utilized. The ESaGSP asserts that "self-evaluation relies on data and other
information on how any school compares with its counterparts" (ESaGS, 2009). Thus, the
policy outlines that schools should benchmark their academic performance against other
schools to make improvements.
Many critics have argued against adopting such an approach as it runs the risk of a culture of
'performativity and exam-driven schooling arising, in which examination results are used as a
method of incentive, control, attrition and change based upon rewards and sanctions (Ball,
2003). A survey conducted by Barnardo's also reported that many pupils in NI felt that this
emphasis on exam-driven schooling by schools and teachers added immense stress and
pressure on them to perform well, and those who did not reach targets often felt like failures
(BarnardosNI 2020). Thus, using productivity or examination outcomes as a measurer of
quality displaces students and their needs from the core of improvement efforts (Chapman
and Sammons, 2013).
This is certainly a fatality of the ESaGSP as it promotes a culture of change and improvement
within schools based on how well the school compares and competes against other schools
regarding PO as opposed to ensuring that improvements are implemented to provide a wellrounded education. This contradicts the polices statement that "the interests of pupils rather
than institutions must be at the centre of efforts to improve educational achievement and
tackle underachievement" (ESaGS, 2009).
Following this, statements from secondary schools across NI that serve disadvantaged
communities were gathered by the Committee for Education for their inquiry into the DE
school improvement policy (NI Assembly, 2011). All the schools commented that they
support the ideology of ESaGSP and acknowledge that educational underachievement (EU)
must be addressed. Yet, many raised concerns regarding the vague and theoretical nature of
the policy in its calls for increasing standards and AL among schools with high levels of
deprivation and subsequently higher levels of underachievement (ibid). For example, the
policy gives negligible recognition to key factors that influence school performance i.e.,
deprivation and lack of social cohesion (Bunting, 2009).
The consequences of the policies insignificant consideration towards such influences are
evident in the continuing underachievement of deprived pupils (DP). Although statistics
indicate positive progress overall regarding educational achievement, it is the performance of
students from GS's of which a low percentage of DP attend, that boosts the overall sector's
results (McMenemy, 2018). The reality is that the policy has fallen short of achieving its
second long-term target of 65% of all FSME pupils achieving 5 GCSEs A*-C including EaM
(EsaGs, 2009). Instead, in 2018-2019 only 54.1% achieved this benchmark target (DoE,
2019a). While there has been some development among AL of this cohort, statistical data
suggests that the policy has only achieved modest gains in closing achievement gaps. Large
AG remain between DP and those not entitled to FSM - most notably among those who attend
NSS's and working-class boys from protestant communities (Scope 2020). For example, in
2018-2019, only 19.7% of protestant boys entitled to FSM achieved five GCSES A*-C grade
including EaM (SyncNI,2020).
In respect to this, it may be argued that the ESaGSP has largely failed to effectively address
the key objective of combatting underachievement within schools with high levels of
disadvantage. This is because the emphasis within the policy on creating 'good' schools
overlooks what happens within schools and even more so what happens outside of schools
(Curtis, 2009).
Although efforts to increase standards within schools is certainly key for increasing AL, the
policy ignores the combination of multi-faceted structural influences that directly impact
educational performance. These include the socioeconomic status of pupils, the operation of
open enrolment within a selective system, teacher rationalization and school funding formed
on school competition which benefits GS's the most (Bunting, 2009; Bochel et al,2009). PO
also reflect pupil's attitude towards school, attendance, and parental engagement and support
of which the policy does not effectively address (He and Tymms,2013). Subsequently, these
factors continue to disproportionately impact NSS's in disadvantaged communities with high
intakes of DP the most, while more affluent pupils who attend GS's continue to come out on
top and attain high PO.
Therefore, considering the inconsistencies in educational performance and AG's that remain
despite the efforts of the ESaGSP to overcome them, the NI Executive established an expert
panel under the 'New Decade, New Approach' agreement to examine the link between EU and
many of the factors mentioned above, particularly the link between pupil's socioeconomic
background (EPEUNI, 2021). The panel have proposed building upon the strengths of
existing policies such as the ESaGSP while also directing greater focus and action towards
Early Years support, student's emotional health and wellbeing, promoting a whole community
and family-wide approach to education and maximizing boy's potential as means of tackling
underachievement in NI (ibid). It is hoped that in the coming month's further developments
will be made towards these initiatives which will create a roadmap for finally address the
issue of educational underperformance and low attainment in NI.
To conclude, EU is a key issue for the government and policymakers in NI. While it may
appear that pupils from NI perform well academically compared to their counterparts across
the UK, upon closer inspection there is a long tail of pupils vastly underachieving
academically. Higher performance outcomes (PO) and AL tend to be found among more
affluent pupils who attend GS's. On the other hand, DP who attend NSS's are hugely
underperforming academically. In response to this, the government published the ESaGSP. It
may seem that the policy has been a success in its attempts to combat low AL due to the
increase in the overall percentage of year 12 pupils reaching the 5 GCSE benchmark
However, a significant percentage of DP are still underperforming and not meeting this
benchmark. Due to this continuing issue, an expert panel has been set up to tackle the
persistent underachievement of DP.
Reference:
AgendaNI, (2017). Education: The Intended Learning Outcomes (Online) Available at:
https://www.agendani.com/education-intended-learning-outcomes/ (Accessed 12 April 2021).
Baldock, J., Manning, N., Vickerstaff, S. and Mitton, L., 2012. Social Policy. 4th ed. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
BanardoNI (2020). New Term, New Challenge, New Opportunities. Putting Children's Mental
Health at the Heart of Education. Banardo's Northern Ireland. (Online) Available at:
https://www.barnardos.org.uk/sites/default/files/uploads/BarnardosNIChildrensMentalHealthAtTheHeartOfEducation.pdf (Accessed 13 April 2021).
Bochel, H., Bochel, C., Page, R. and Sykes, R., 2009. Social Policy, Themes, Issues and
Debates. 2nd ed. Harlow: Pearson.
Borooah, V.K and Knox, C. (2014). Segregation, inequality, and educational performance in
Northern Ireland: Problems and solutions. Institute for Research in Social Sciences,
University of Ulster. (Online). Available at:
https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0738059314000947?token=F847048E07064A13AA
DFC4C48FD4815323CA461045E0EE7D863063CDE634C51BBF9CE813C828DB846EB52
542D277C65D&originRegion=eu-west-1&originCreation=20210403220714 (Accessed 04
March 2021).
Bunting, F (2009). Every School a Good School INTO Response. (Online) Available at:
https://www.into.ie/app/uploads/2019/07/5.2.5.9.7_ESAGS_Response.pdf (Accessed 13 April
2021).
Burns, S, Leitch, R and Hughes, J (2015). Education Inequalities in Northern Ireland
Summary Report. School of Education, Queen's University Belfast. (Online) Available at:
https://www.equalityni.org/ECNI/media/ECNI/Publications/Delivering%20Equality/Educatio
nInequality-SummaryReport.pdf
Chitty, C. (2014) Education policy in Britain., Third ed. Palgrave MacMillan: Basingstoke.
Curtis, A (2009) A Good School for Every Child Review. London Review of Education.
Routledge.
Department of Education Wales (2019b). Examination results in schools in Wales, Statistics
for the Welsh Government 2018/19. (Online). Available at:
https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/statistics-and-research/2020-01/examination-resultsseptember-2018-august-2019-revised-477.pdf (Accessed 03 March 2021
Department of Education England, (2020) Key stage 4 Performance, 2019. (Online) Available
at:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
file/863815/2019_KS4_revised_text.pdf (Accessed 27 March 2021).
Dunstan, M., 2020. Education Inequality within the UK by Megan Dunstan. [online]
Yourunion.net. Available at: <https://www.yourunion.net/news/article/6950/EducationInequality-within-the
UK/#:~:text=In%20the%20UK%2C%20children%20from,inequalities%20as%20they%20bec
ome%20adults.&text=The%20UK%20is%20a%20geographically,%2C%20health%2C%20ed
ucation%20and%20more.> [Accessed 1 April 2021].
EPUNI (2021) Expert Panel on Educational Underachievement in Northern Ireland. Interm
Report. Department of Education. (Online) Available at: https://www.educationni.gov.uk/publications/expert-panel-education-underachievement-interim-report (Accessed 14
March 2021).
Every School a Good School (2010) School Development Planning. (Online) Available At:
https://www.rtuni.org/userfiles/every-school-a-good-school-school-development-planningguidance-2010-english-version.pdf
Henderson, L, Harris, J, Purdy, N and Walsh, G (2020) Educational Underachievement in
Northern Ireland: Evidence Summary, Stranmillis University College, Belfast: Centre for
Research in Educational Underachievement.
He,Q and Tymms,P., (2013). The principal axis approach to value-added calculation.
Educational Research and Evaluation. (Online). Available at:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13803611.2013.860036?needAccess=true
(Accessed 14 April 2021).
Mandler, P (2017)., 'Secondary Education in Northern Ireland: A Preliminary Report'.
Economics and Social Research Council. University of Cambridge. (Online) Available at:
https://sesc.hist.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Briefing-paper-Northern-Ireland.pdf
(Accessed 03 March 2021).
Martin, P (2016). No Child Left Behind. A report on Educational Underachievement in
Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland Assembly. Educational Research Report. (Online).
Available at: http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/globalassets/documents/education/cllr-petermartin.pdf (Accessed 14 March 2021).
McGuinness, S.J, (2012). Education Policy in Northern Ireland: A Review. Journal of
Sociology of Education. University of Ulster. (Online). Available at:
https://pure.ulster.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/11364696/Education_Policy_in_NI_a_Review.p
df (Accessed 11 April 2021).
McMenemy, R. (2018). Attainment and performance in the controlled schools' sector. Control
School Support Council. (Online). Available at:
https://www.csscni.org.uk/sites/default/files/201812/Attainment%20and%20performance%20in%20the%20controlled%20sector%20Full%20re
port%20.pdf (Accessed 14 March 2021).
Midgley, J, Surender, R and Alfers, L (2019)., Handbook of social policy and development.
Cheltenham, UK : Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Northern Ireland Assembly (2011). Committee for Education, Inquiry into Successful PostPrimary Schools Serving Disadvantaged Communities. Volume 2. (Online) Available
at:http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/globalassets/documents/committees/2007-
2011/education/reports/inquiry-into-successful-post-primary-schools-vol-2.pdf (Accessed 12
April 2021).
Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (2010) Talking Transfer:
Pupil Perspectives of the Transfer Process in 2010, NICCY: Belfast.
Ofsted, (2006). Improving performance through school self-evaluation and improvement
planning. (Online). Available at:
https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/5986/1/Improving%20performance%20through%20school%20selfevaluation%20and%20improvement%20planning%20(PDF%20format).pdf (Accessed, 12
April 2021).
Perry, C. (2010). Successful Post-Primary Schools Serving Disadvantaged Communities.
Overall summary. Research and Library Service Research Paper. Northern Ireland Assembly.
Perry, C (2016) Academic selection: a brief overview. Northern Ireland Assembly. Research
and Information Service Briefing Note. (Online) Available at:
http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/globalassets/documents/raise/publications/20162021/2016/education/4816.pdf (Accessed 16 April 2021).
ScopeNI, (2020) The impact of COVID-19 and educational attainment in NI (Online).
Available at: https://scopeni.nicva.org/article/the-impact-of-covid-19-and-educationalattainment-in-ni (Accessed 16 April 2021).
Shewbridge, C. et al. (2014), OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education:
Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in
Education, OECD Publishing.
SYNCNI, (2020). Department of Education wants your views on underachievement in
schools. (Online) Available at :https://syncni.com/article/4795/department-of-educationwants-your-views-on (Accessed 16 April 2021).
Thornley, T (2014). The Strategic significance of school self-evaluation. National College for
Teaching and Leadership. (Online) Available at:
http://www.inspiringleaderstoday.com/ILTMaterials/LEVEL2_SSE-v4.0-2014_08_2211_16/school-self-evaluation/sse-s2/sse-s2-t03.html (Accessed 12 April 2021).
Trow, M. (1972), The Expansion and Transformation of Higher Education, Morristown, NJ:
General Learning Press