‘Sharing’ or ‘Seperate but Equal’ Manifesto analysis from NICIE
Posted by Lisa on Mar 05 2007 under A Shared Future, Education & training, Alliance Party, DUP, SDLP, Sinn Féin, UUP, Parties, Manifesto |
Pam Tilson from NICIE sent this helpful roundup of how the manifestos deal with the issue of creating a shared future.
‘Sharing’ or ‘Separate but Equal’?
How far along the road have each of the parties moved to recognising that ‘separate but equal’ – some kind of benign apartheid - is no longer acceptable and that we need to move towards a society where shared schools, housing, workplaces, leisure facilities and other services are commonplace?
The SDLP do talk about shared spaces, ‘cross community activity for the young’ and mention more opportunities for integration and co-operation between schools. The party also talks about youth clubs and sport as a way of bringing children together. However, they don’t actually take the step of recognising that children mixing together outside school is more likely to come about if they sit next to each other in a classroom every day. How many parents can honestly say that their children’s closest friends have met in settings other than formal school ones?
The SDLP also mention mixed estates, and propose measures such as outlawing sectarian or national flags on public property and a strategy against hate crime, to help bring about an environment conducive of more mixed housing.
Sinn Fein want to promote a shared future based on equality ‘cherishing all of the people equally’ and promise to properly resource integrated education. There is no mention of shared housing, though the party’s economic section does mention the social and economic consequences of discrimination. Sinn Fein promises to ring-fence a ‘meaningful proportion’ of the budget for programmes aimed at tackling economic inequality and poverty and pledges to work for ‘inclusivity and a pluralist society in which difference is celebrated and cultural diversity is encouraged’.
The term ‘shared future’ is not mentioned in the DUP manifesto, but it does highlight measures to tackle inequality in educational achievement, and access to programmes such as Sure Start and the Extended Schools programme. In practical terms this may lead to more sharing in education, with perhaps two small schools combining to provide the breakfast and after schools clubs mentioned.
The title of the UUP manifesto, and their campaign slogan ‘For All of Us’, would suggest that they have moved towards a more shared, pluralist society. Does the title in this case match the content? Mention is made of ‘flexible local programmes to facilitate shared educational initiatives between sectors – delivering increased efficiency and opportunity, and preparing our children for citizenship in a shared community’. As with the SDLP manifesto, this begs the question – where is the recognition that the best way to ensure that children grow up in a shared community is for them to share the classroom, for their parents to share the school run and meet socially, and for them to live and work in shared spaces? Their manifesto states ‘the Ulster Unionists are proud of Northern Ireland’s place in the diverse, pluralist, modern United Kingdom and states its commitment to a Bill of Rights. I stand corrected but I think this is a first for the UUP.
The Alliance Manifesto – An agenda for a United Community - explicitly states that they would ‘ensure the implementation of the Shared Future strategy for Northern Ireland, and the Triennial Shared Future Action Plan’. It focuses on the £1 Billion the party claims is wasted each year in dealing with a divided society and gives a specific commitment to increase the percentage of children in integrated schools to 10% by 2010. Alliance say that rather than funding a separate and parallel set of services they would redirect this money to be spent on ‘providing quality shared facilities and avoiding punitive taxes’. The manifesto says the Party rejects the notion of a parallel society of separate but equal and wants government to ‘embrace the vision of a shared future where people can live and learn, work and play together in safety.
Innovative and consensual?
Let’s look at what the Manifestos are saying might be considered new or innovative, and where there might be consensus. It’s clear that what is innovative might not get consensus and what might get some sort of consensus is unlikely to be very innovative. In fact, when it comes to education we find very little that is particularly innovative or consensual in the manifestos.
There might be a realisation (if not consenus) that the days of the post primary school a child attends being decided on the basis of two hour long tests taken on separate days in October and November of Primary 7, are to end in 2008 but no agreement on what should replace it. It will come as no surprise that the UUP and DUP have reiterated their oft stated commitment to retaining academic selection, with the DUP going as far as suggesting the recently mooted Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT) as a way of ‘matching’ pupils to schools. The UUP seem to be advocating the pupil profile and parental choice, and allowing schools to use ‘fair and consistent academic criteria’ to choose pupils. The party balances this with a pledge to move towards every non grammar becoming a ‘specialist’ school and centres of excellence in their own field. Alliance and Sinn Fein also advocate the use of a pupil profile to match pupils to schools, but Alliance says this should not be a tool for academic selection. Alliance specifically mentions the deferral of ‘electing a particular educational route’ until the age of 14. This has been recently mooted by other parties, but not specifically mentioned in any other manifesto. Is this an area for more discussion, and one which might lead to some consensus post-election ?
The SDLP specifically oppose pupil profiles or Computer Adaptive testing – labelling them as ‘selection by the back door’. They argue for an ‘all ability, co-educational school system.’ Sinn Fein argue for all ability post 11-18 schools.
The UUP want to slow down the implementation of the Bain report. The Alliance manifesto recognises the need for rationalisation, but worries that the lack of structure without Bain is currently leading to schools rationalising within their own sectors rather than looking at the opportunities for sharing. The DUP recognises that existing over capacity in some schools is unsustainable, but balances this by promoting the virtues of small rural schools.
Parties agree on the need to improve educational choices and achievement for those from disadvantaged areas. This is specifically mentioned in the DUP and Sinn Fein documents, and implicitly supported in all the others. Whilst there is clearly consensus that something must be done in this regard, it remains to be seen if consensus can be reached on how it can and should be done.
The SDLP proposal to replace ‘A’ levels with a broader curriculum has been greeted with derision already by the DUP. Not much consensus there! However, on closer examination, what they say is not that far removed from what is happening in schools already, and certainly not that far removed from the Alliance statement that pupils should be free to ‘mix and match’ vocational and academic success. The argument may be around how much of a role the ‘A’ level, as we understand it, is part of that ‘mix and match’ approach to post 16 education.
The new Education Minister is likely to be embroiled in a row immediately on appointment. The DUP have already stated that their first choice of Ministerial portfolio will be Finance, leaving the UUP to claim that they are happy to have Sinn Fein take up the mantle at DfE again. They have stated that they will take the portfolio if it is vacant when they reach their turn under the D’hondt system, throwing the challenge down to Sinn Fein to take it before them. The blue box will be full, and whoever takes the job will face one of the toughest tests in a newly restored Assembly.
Comments
One Response to “‘Sharing’ or ‘Seperate but Equal’ Manifesto analysis from NICIE”
Leave a Reply
What a useful document!
And what a shame that most of our political figureheads can only reflect voters’ wishes to amplify difference, rather than display some real ‘leadership’ in promoting the benefits, cultural, social and economic, of a shared future.
If only they had Pam’s balanced approach, applied intelligence and powers of analysis….