Jeff Peel's Diary

I’m actually rather impressed with Sir Reg and his little team these days.  I admire their new-found determination in standing up to the assembled masses of Agreement-Correctness emanating from the NIO and Capitol Hill.  Although the esoteric arguments as to why they are doing it (e.g. Ken Maginnis’ dispepsic ramblings on this morning’s Today Programme) will be lost on most of the Westminster and Washington establishment.

Reg is correct to point out the dysfunctional nature of the Assembly.  It has achieved nothing of any great consequence.  The rumbling sores at the heart of Northern Ireland government are nowhere close to being healed.  The greatest sore is that of education.  Sinn Fein is treating the electorate with contempt on the matter of selection and funding of prep departments. 

Long and short if the Assembly is so dysfunctional and so incapable – what hope is there for it in overseeing the highly contentious issues of policing and justice?  Reg is absolutely right to point this out.  Ironically, he’s behaving more like a level-headed Conservative on this matter than the leader of his sister Party. 

The vast majority of people here couldn’t give a damn about the devolution of policing and justice.  They are perhaps in agreement that a deal should be done – just so that we can be spared the endlessly circuitous crisis talks.  However, politicians have an ethical obligation to elevate themselves, just occasionally, beyond populism. 

If the SDLP and Alliance had any political sense they might support Reg.  Then we might just see a triumph of common sense.  However, there’s precious little of that in Northern Ireland politics.

Stop Press: James O’Fee’s Perspective

Connie Fisher visiting Friends' Prep School, Lisburn, today

Connie Fisher, the actress and singer, who won the BBC One talent contest, How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria?, had the tables turned on her today when she was treated to a performance of the Sound of Music at Friends’ Prep school in Lisburn. 

After the performance she pointed out that such was the quality of the performance by the children, she reckoned they might just be a competitive threat.  There’s no doubt that some wonderful talent was on display (although I’m biased because my son was in the cast).  But, then again, prep schools are especially good at educating kids and giving them confidence – on stage and beyond. 

Connie’s visit to the prep school coincides with the Department of Education’s decision to accept the recommendations of a funding review of Grammar School preparatory schools.  It would appear that such funding is to be withdrawn on the basis of a politically correct argument of “equity”.  Prep schools provide a wonderful education – a much more wonderful education than some state funded primary schools.  The Department feels it is inequitable that prep schools – nearly wholly funded by parents – should get a paltry amount of public money.  Therefore they are proposing withdrawing what little funding there is left.  This will put prep schools beyond the reach of many parents. 

I have written before about this subject.  However, it now seems likely that the Department will press ahead with these plans.  I wanted to use this platform to make the case made by the prep schools themselves to maintain the very limited public sector funding in place for prep schools. 

The Review’s conclusion and recommendation that funding for Preparatory Departments should be withdrawn is illogical.  The Review acknowledges that there is a value for money case for continuing this funding but relies on the assertion that this is outweighed by “equity considerations”. 

Parents of Preparatory Department pupils are effectively subsidising the state by paying a fee. The exercise of choice in favour of Preparatory Department education does not necessarily mean that a parent is from a privileged background or that the cost of preparatory education is borne lightly.  The withdrawal of Department of Education funding is very likely to lead to a substantial increase in the costs faced by all of the parents who choose to send their children to a Preparatory Department.

The Review acknowledges the Department of Education’s obligations under the Education and Libraries (NI) Order 1986.  The Department of Education has failed to demonstrate that it has considered the implications of the Order for parental choice in this area, that it has dealt with the issue of “unreasonable public expenditure” or that withdrawal of funding is compatible with its responsibilities under Article 2 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The present funding arrangements are indeed inequitable in that parents who exercise this choice are required to pay a top-up fee while not being accorded any compensating tax relief.

The education of the 2,500 young children currently in Preparatory Departments will be subject to disruption if cost issues lead to their transfer to other schools.

One of the Department of Education’s aspirations is the raising of academic standards – the withdrawal of funding to a cost effective (as acknowledged in the Review) delivery system is not compatible with the Department’s educational aims as the review acknowledges the very high educational standards in Preparatory Departments.

The Review seems to assume that Preparatory Departments will continue to exist as private fee paying establishments.  The Department has provided no guidance as to how the creation of such a sector is compatible with the Department of Education’s aims and aspirations or with the state funded status of the parent schools.

The proposed withdrawal of funding from 1 September 2010 leaves insufficient time for forward planning.

If you oppose Ruane’s continued attacks on what is good in our education system please write and make your MLA aware of your opposition to these plans. 

Here’s a complete list of Assembly members - with links to their profiles and email addresses.  Write and make them aware of your opposition to this attack on choice in our education system.