Debate contribution: Academic Selection

Debate contribution by Mrs Cathy Mason on 3 February 2026.

MLA

Mrs Cathy Mason

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

3 February 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Academic Selection

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5362436

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

For many 10- and 11-year-old children across the North, the type of school that they attend after primary school is determined by a high-stakes exam. At a time when children are preparing for the daunting transition to post-primary school and the move into a new environment in which they will no longer the big fish in a small pond, many face the added pressure of sitting a selection exam. The very thought of the test causes undue stress for children and their families. For many, the pressure begins the moment they enter primary 7, and, often, it begins much earlier, all because of a brutal system in which a child's educational pathway is effectively decided at just 11 years of age. That pressure is driven by a persistent narrative that children will receive a higher-quality education if they attend a selective school. Yet, despite those claims, research shows selective systems have no clear overall advantage over non-selective systems. As a result of those claims, many families feel obliged, in the interests of their children, to put them through a non-statutory, unregulated and privately run transfer system that operates without proper oversight, evaluation or safeguards. That is unfair on parents, and it is unjust for children. How can it be right that an exam taken at 11 years of age continues to determine the educational future of so many of our young people? We know that academic selection has a damaging impact on children's self-esteem and mental health. That cannot be denied. We have heard that straight from the mental health champion, Siobhán O'Neill. Preparation for transfer tests often comes at the expense of key areas of the curriculum, including art, play and physical education, which are all required for development and well-being. We have heard from families that intensive preparation continues in classrooms in which not all the children are sitting the exams. What does that do? It creates a two-tier classroom environment in which some children are prioritised and others are implicitly sidelined. That division alone clearly undermines confidence and self-worth. The harm deepens when the results are issued, effectively sorting children into two groups: those who are deemed to be suitable for grammar school and those who are not. At 11 years old, children are told explicitly or implicitly that they are less capable than their peers and should, therefore, be educated elsewhere. That is not fair, and it is not acceptable. Research consistently shows that academic performance is closely linked to family income and background. Children from working-class and lower-income families are far more likely to attend non-selective schools, while children from more affluent backgrounds are disproportionately represented in grammar schools. In reality, the system pressures parents into paying for private tuition simply to give their child a chance in the test, and many families cannot afford to do so. When access to opportunity depends on a family's ability to pay, it cannot be credibly described as fair. It reinforces a two-tier education system. Free school meals entitlement is a widely accepted measurement of disadvantage and shows that the most disadvantaged pupils in the North overwhelmingly attend non-grammar schools. Pupils are also less likely to attend a grammar school if their primary school serves a community with higher levels of deprivation. Children with special educational needs (SEN) and those from disadvantaged backgrounds are significantly under-represented in those schools. That is not inclusion; it is an elitist system that is reinforced through selection. Despite what the Minister has said before, this is not a debate about a lack of political consensus. There may not be political consensus in the Chamber, but there is clear evidence of consensus on the harm caused by academic selection and its failure to improve the outcomes for all children. The inconsistency in the Minister's position is striking. We are told that he cannot act on academic selection because consensus does not exist, yet he is pushing ahead at extreme pace with the TransformED programme, which closely mirrors reforms in England, including the promotion of a so-called knowledge-rich curriculum, one of the core claims for which is that it will tackle educational underachievement and place all children on a level playing field. The Minister cannot credibly argue for a level playing field on the one hand while, on the other, continuing to support an archaic system of academic selection that sorts children at 11 years of age and entrenches inequality from the outset. Ministers are elected not to wait for consensus but to lead on the basis of solid evidence and the aim of giving every child the best opportunities in life. We are repeatedly told by the Minister that the focus should be on making every school a good school. Of course every school should be a good school — nobody disputes that — but, at its core, it should be about raising standards for all, which does not sit with academic selection. We cannot build equality on a system that ranks children and schools from the outset and creates winners and losers. An unequal admissions system will always undermine efforts to raise standards across the system. Doing nothing is a choice; in this case, it is a choice that leaves some children paying the price. Crucially, despite repeated claims about the effectiveness of grammar schools, most studies show no clear advantages to selective education once family income and background have been taken into account. Outcomes are no better overall than in non-selective systems. We must ask ourselves this: if academic selection does not deliver better results, what is the justification for putting children through such pressure and harm? If the stress is real, the inequality is clear and the outcomes are no better, we must confront a simple truth: academic selection has failed our children not because change is impossible but because it is being avoided. It is time for that to end.

992 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:23 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification