CAIN Web Service

The future of selection
The verdict of a young citizens’ jury on the 11+

1. Democratic Dialogue, a Belfast-based think-tank, initiated the organisation of a citizens’ jury around the post-primary selection issue. It was supported in this endeavour by Queen’s University Belfast and the University of Ulster. The timing of the event was deliberately chosen to link with the review of post-primary selection instigated by the minister of education, Martin McGuinness MLA. Uniquely, the citizens’ jury comprised 18 randomly chosen year-12 students from nine post-primary schools in Northern Ireland.
2. Over the weekend of November 24^th-26^th 2000, the ‘young citizens’ jury’ deliberated on issues relating to post-primary selection. Democratic Dialogue helped plan and facilitate these discussions and organised two preliminary meetings with the students to familiarise them with the citizens’ jury concept and the issues around selection. In addition, Democratic Dialogue provided moderators to assist the jurors in their deliberations during the event itself. Jurors had an opportunity to question a range of expert witnesses to help them clarify the issues and draw conclusions on the substantive questions.
3. The jury considered two broad questions. Firstly, they were asked to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the current system of post-primary selection. Secondly, jurors were asked to consider the best option for the future.After considering the range of information presented to it, the jury concluded as follows.
4. The jurors were agreed that the weaknesses of the current system outweighed its strengths and that therefore the status quo was not acceptable.
5. The jurors also agreed that there should be a new form of assessment at age 11, including scope for teacher assessment as well as written tests.
6. The majority of the jurors believed that, on the basis of this assessment, all students should transfer to comprehensive secondary schools, with students streamed according to ability but with flexibility to move between these levels.
7. The minority of the jurors believed that students should transfer to different post-primary schools, variously grammar, secondary and vocational.

1. Democratic Dialogue is an independent think tank based in Belfast. It was set up in 1995 to encourage fresh political thinking, broaden participation, and to work in partnership with a wide spectrum of organisations in problem solving. The organisation has organised seminars and produced documents on a wide range of important issues, and was responsible for organising Ireland’s first citizens’ jury–in conjunction with the Eastern Health and Social Services Board and the Eastern Health and Social Services Council–in 1999.
2. A citizens’ jury brings together a representative group of people to deliberate on a particular issue. Over an extended period the jurors are exposed to information about the issue and hear a wide range of views from selected witnesses. Participants are provided with a question or a policy agenda and are asked to produce a decision or provide recommendations in the form of a citizens’ report.
3. To ensure an effective outcome, and in recognition of the unique composition of the jury in this case, two preliminary meetings were held with students and their teachers. The first meeting gave the jurors information on the citizens’ jury concept and outlined a schedule for the event. There was also an opportunity for students and teachers to have an input to the programme. A second meeting focused on the topic for discussion, and an overview of the key issues relating to post-primary selection was presented to the jurors.

1. A key element of the citizens’ jury is the need to ensure that the jury is, as far as is reasonably practicable, representative of the population from which it is drawn. In order to ensure the representativeness of those participating in the young citizens’ jury, a two-stage selection process was undertaken.
2. First, a list of all the secondary schools in Northern Ireland was compiled. This list was stratified to reflect the main sectoral divisions in the post-primary population, based on

• type of school (secondary versus grammar) and
• religious affiliation–largely identified by status as controlled (mainly Protestant), maintained (predominantly Catholic) or integrated (mixture of Protestant and Catholic).

3. This typology resulted in five strata: (1) controlled secondary, (2) controlled grammar, (3) maintained secondary, (4) maintained grammar and (5) integrated. Two schools were selected from strata (1) to (4), with one selected from stratum (5). This selection was conducted on a random basis, with schools being continually invited to participate (some declined the invitation) until the required number and type of schools were achieved.
4. Secondly, in order to achieve a jury of 18 members, each of the nine possible school composites (by type of school and religious affiliation) contributed 2 students. This process was also largely random, with some schools undertaking a highly systematic approach (including the holding of interviews). Appendix 1 diagrammatically shows the outcome of the selection process with the names of the schools participating. Appendix 2 lists the jurors taking part.

1. A unique aspect of citizens’ juries is the use of expert witnesses to assist jurors in their deliberations. The witnesses invited to participate in the young citizens’ jury were selected to reflect the range of opinion on the subject, from academia, schools, the political institutions, business and the educational system. Each witness was asked to provide a short biographical statement and a brief summary of their presentation in advance of the event. On the day each gave a ten-minute presentation, and was then questioned by the jury. A list of witnesses is outlined in appendix 3.

1. The citizens’ jury was held over three days–Friday evening to Sunday lunchtime. Most of the deliberations took place on Saturday, when there was a mixture of plenary sessions (including the appearance of witnesses) and working in sub-groups. On Sunday morning, the jury considered the substantive questions and discussed conclusions. By lunchtime a position was reached where the jury had agreed its conclusions and this is reflected in this citizens’ report.

1. The citizens’ jury considered two key questions:

• what are the strengths and weaknesses of the current system of post-primary-school selection?
• what are the options for the future of post-primary-school selection?

1. The jury, on the basis of the evidence presented to them and their own deliberations, identified the following strengths claimed for the current system:

• It promotes academic high achievement and stretches high flyers.
• The change to a comprehensive system in England and Wales was associated with a widening deficit in overall academic performance compared with Northern Ireland.
• Northern Ireland has the highest rate of participation in higher education in these islands.
• Selection is unavoidable given that some post-primary schools are more popular than others.
• The system allows individuals to work with their peers at their own level and in a supportive environment.
• There are no independent schools in Northern Ireland privileging the wealthy (unlike in Great Britain).

2. On the same basis, the following weaknesses were established:

• There is no reason for selection at 11 when all secondary students do same curriculum.
• The transfer test distorts the late-primary curriculum, grading is unreliable and the result is not a real indicator of secondary performance.
• Selection at 11 leads to a long tail of under-achievement, not consistent with social justice.
• A stigma of failure attaches to those individuals who do not pass the transfer test and vocational qualifications are under-valued.
• Options are foreclosed at early stage and there is less flexibility for individual change.
• The wider system of assessment, of which the 11+ is a part, narrows the focus of education and does not correspond to pupils’, economic, social or environmental needs.

1. The jurors were agreed that the weaknesses of the current system outweighed its strengths and that therefore the status quo was not acceptable.
2. The jurors also agreed that there should be a new form of assessment at age 11, including scope for teacher assessment as well as written tests.
3. The majority of the jurors believed that, on the basis of this assessment, all students should transfer to comprehensive secondary schools, with students streamed according to ability but with flexibility to move between these levels.
4. The minority of the jurors believed that students should transfer to different post-primary schools, variously grammar, secondary and vocational.

Carmel Gallagher Assistant director
Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment

Prof Tony Gallagher School of Education
Queen’s University

Stephen Kingon Northern Ireland Managing Partner
PricewaterhouseCoopers

Rev Jim McAllister Convenor
Presbyterian Church board of education

Eddie McArdle Deputy chief executive
Council for Catholic Maintained Schools

Uel McCrea Principal
Ballyclare Secondary School

Dr Wilfred Mulryne Principal
Methodist College Belfast

Sammy Wilson MLA Vice-chair
Education Committee, Northern Ireland Assembly

Democratic Dialogue {external_link}
53 University Street, Belfast, Northern Ireland BT7 1FY
Phone: +44 (0)28 9022 0050. Fax: +44 (0)28 9022 0051
E-mail: info@democraticdialogue.org

Back to the top of this page