REPORT FROM NICIE ANNUAL SEMINAR
“Shaping the Future through Education”
14. 11. 15
Conference Hall, Stranmillis University College
The theme for this year’s seminar was explored through inputs from four leaders in key
sectors of our society. They were:
Peter Osborne, Chair of the Community Relations Council
Dr Ian Graham, Business and Industry Consultant
Dr David Russel, Deputy Director Human Rights Commission
Lisa Mc Elherron, Head of Public Affairs, NICVA
Dr Helen Mc Laughlin, NICIE vice chair and Chair of Policy and Planning Committee, set the
context for discussion against the sombre backdrop of the previous night’s events in Paris
and more local political and social challenges. Helen also noted, that the failure of any
politicians to be present was both a matter of regret and a problem for NICIE to solve.
Peter Osborne opened discussion with an unequivocal condemnation of our current
education system, stating, “Segregation in education is bankrupt, morally, socially,
economically. It’s wrong and should end here…Getting rid of segregation in education is one
of the most important systemic changes we need to make…”
Peter expanded on his theme with references to his personal experience and community
background to underscore the importance of education in supporting social change through
hope, aspiration and, opportunities to “meet the other”. He warned about the toxic impact of
young people from working class backgrounds being told by peers or parents that education
wasn’t working for them or their community and that even worse, the “others” were getting a
better deal. This, he said, was “storing up social problems for the future”.
Peter moved on to explore the need for systemic reform in our education system from an
economic point of view. He cited findings from The NI Audit Report of an excess of 71,000
surplus places; recent findings from the Ministerial advisory Group on Initial Teacher
Education and a Deloitte review about the oversupply of newly qualified teachers. He made
a robust call for fundamental change – indeed his analysis of ITE and oversupply of teachers
was disputed during discussion. Peter concluded with the following three challenges to
politicians:
1. “If Integrated Education is the optimum form of sharing, how do we ensure that
current Shared Education initiatives provide real, meaningful engagement and do
actually result in movement towards a more integrated system?”
2. “Many politicians privately support integrated education. When are they going to have
the courage to voice this publically?”
3. “When will Area Planning plan for more integrated provision?”
For NICIE, he urged that the experience and expertise of the integrated movement as a
whole be defended and used for the benefit of young people in shared education. “No one
else has more experience than the integrated sector …and it is important for NICIE to be
aware of how it is viewed and facilitated in both the policy context and implementation of
shared education”.
Subsequent to Peter’s input the following issues were raised:





What can the IE movement do to break through the current plateau of only 7% of
children attending integrated schools?
Sharing works when there is enough to go around – will sharing work when there
isn’t extra funding?
Does IE need to review how it positions itself; the language it uses?
Are there risks to Article 64 in the current policy and proposed bill for shared
education?
Trust and respectful dialogue is needed in discussions about ITE providers – there is
an oversupply in most professions, not just in teaching
Peter Osborne concluded with the following remarks:



Everyone involved in IE should be supporting the strengthening of relevant legislation
The issue of having 4 separate ITE providers must be tackled in the programme for
government
There is a perception that IE is hostile to shared education: it is better for IE to bring
its expertise to improving Shared Education rather than to be perceived as being
wholly critical
Dr Ian Graham’s presentation developed the seminar theme, using hard hitting data and
analogies from business and economics. As Helen Mc Laughlin remarked in her
conclusions, it was refreshing for NICIE and all educationalists to be challenged in such a
manner. His power point presentation is available on the NICIE web site for reference; below
is a summary flavour of his provocative insights:



Northern Ireland needs to stop believing its own hype i.e. we don’t have a “world
class education system” and our economy is still reliant on 75% public sector activity
The figures simply “don’t stack up” and Westminster is not going to keep money
coming
Do any of our politicians have any ideas that are based in reality? e.g. the issue of
reducing corporation tax has been talked about since 2005 with still no action
Further to the above criticisms and, by implication, their application to educational change,
Dr Graham posed specific questions for integrated schools.
How do/should they respond to?



Radical extremism, particularly in light of the Paris atrocities?
IT and ECO challenges?
The failure of the capitalist model?
He suggested further that education can learn from successful business principles and
practices such as the need for schools to be:




Agile and adaptive
Innovative and inclusive
Current and relevant; and above all,
Committed to supporting their population throughout their lives.
The third speaker, Dr David Russell contextualised his presentation with a summary of the
preceding inputs. To a great extent, previous speakers had addressed two fundamental
questions about education, these being:
1. What is the purpose of education?
2. What are the most effective means of its delivery?
With regard to our current education system, Human Rights (HR) Law says little about
question 2, and whilst parental choice continues to be key to policy and planning for schools,
neither parental choice, nor the right to a particular education are absolute rights. Similarly,
there is no right to either shared education or to integrated education. With regards to
shared and integrated education, Dr Russell suggested it is instead more useful to look at
what government has done to date and what government could do further, in order for it to
fully comply with HR law.
As an opening, David made the point that the proposed legislation, which references only
the minimum essential requirements for shared education, will be problematic from a HR
perspective if these are not applied equally to all sections of society. Again from a HR
perspective, the Bill could be considered to be weak. In giving “power” to The Department of
Education, The Council for Catholic Maintained Schools, The Youth Council for Northern
Ireland and the Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum Examinations and Assessment,
the Bill enables these bodies so that they “may encourage, facilitate and promote shared
education”. From a HR perspective, this prompts obvious questions such as, “What happens
if a new Minister of Education or indeed any of these bodies choose not to exercise this
power?”
A “duty”, on the other hand is more onerous, in that it infers actual requirements.
Government’s severest critics may argue that the current duty regarding integrated
education – which is stronger than a power – is being done badly. There is still yet, no body
with statutory responsibility to plan for integrated schools, despite the eventual formation of
the single Education Authority. Before Christmas last year, NICIE was threatened with a
15% budget cut despite its function in supporting DE to meet the statutory duty. If such
recent history can be used to gauge longer term commitment and resources for shared
education, then, one might argue that its outlook is bleak, once funding dries up. Comments
from the floor echoed an underlying fear that current philanthropic funding for shared
education, might turn out to deliver no more than another expensive, and short lived iteration
of EMU.
On a pragmatic note, David proposed that we return to the high level purposes of integrated
and, more latterly, shared education, both as a means of maximising common purpose and
HR compliance. Integrated Education and Shared Education both want the promotion of
tolerance, mutual understanding and respect. We seem to be agreed on the answer to the
first question, “What is the purpose of education?” but in disagreement about the second,
“What are the most effective means of its delivery?” One possibility for finding an answer to
the second question is to continue to lobby government about failure to tackle segregation in
education as highlighted in previous and recent work in relation to the UNCRC.
The fourth speaker, Lisa Mc Elherron provided a strong, child– focused presentation on the
impact of cuts, economics etc. on quality of life and aspirations for children and young
people. She presented uncomfortable facts about the out workings of poverty; the grim
reality of low paid employment limiting the hopes and aspirations of many young people in
being able to live independently or buy their own home. If it was needed, Lisa’s presentation
underscored the importance of policy makers, all educational authorities and stakeholders to
set ideology and loyalty to institutions aside, for the benefit of children and young people.
Despite current difficulties, she confronted us with surprising data about the high levels of
trust and esteem in which the public continue to hold schools. This, she argued, was a
massive opportunity to be seized – schools and teachers are still very much in a position to
do good and make a difference to the quality of children and young people’s lives. Hence the
need, she urged us, to believe that problems are not insurmountable. Her rallying extended
further to her interesting observation that Integrated Education, seemed, “to be giving itself a
hard time”. It was very important, she continued, to get reinvigorated by the energy and spirit
of integrated school founders - Integrated Education is an historical and international
example of a highly successful social movement. Lisa concurred with comments from the
floor, that Integrated Education must not put itself, nor allow itself to be described as a sector
– it is an important social movement. We should, Lisa concluded, “continue to poke holes in
the dyke” and we will get more little springs and leaks of social and parental power to
strengthen the movement.
As expected, there was lively discussion and insufficient time in which to explore it all fully. In
the interests of future work, a list of issues for further comment is listed.
The issue of having 4 separate ITE providers must be tackled in the programme for
government, including the futures of those providers, protection/enhancement of local jobs,
sustaining the fine work, alternative uses, and providing value for money or savings
When births are registered, parental choice could be better captured by asking parents to
indicate their preference for educational provision
Schools should be supported to deliver the ethos of shared and integrated education
Those schools who say they are already integrated need to prove that they are
Experiences of work outside IE suggest that there is still lack of understanding/mis
information about integrated education, yet big employers and investors recognise the need
for an integrated work force
More research is needed on why parents don’t send their kids to IE schools
If you want to tackle segregation, there will be other pressures on the system; less parental
choice? This is regressive however and wouldn’t stack alongside HR
There are valuable Experiences and Learning from Educate Together in ROI that we could
share more formally