Debate contribution: Academic Selection

Debate contribution by Mrs Michelle Guy on 3 February 2026.

MLA

Mrs Michelle Guy

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

3 February 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Academic Selection

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5362587

Read the official Assembly record

Text

There is so much to say about the transfer system here. There are ideological points, statistics and research findings, but, at the heart of the system, there are 10- and 11-year-old primary-school children. To be honest, if I were to look at it through that lens, the system would break my heart. To illustrate that, I go back to my daughter's first practice test, which she did in our kitchen during lockdown. One of the comprehension questions was on a topic that she loved. She wrote an answer that was expressive, thoughtful and full of detail. As we went through the marking scheme, I had to explain to her that, although I loved her answer, and the extra thought that she had put into it, it did not matter. It would not earn her any more marks. As such, I told her that she would have to restrict her answers. For me, that moment felt like an affront to the very idea of education, because it was now about teaching to the test — sterile, regimented and repetitive — at 10 years old. Let me be absolutely clear that participation in the process is not endorsement. Parents do not engage with academic selection because they believe that it is right but because they have no real choice. We navigate the system that we have, not the system that we wish that we had, because, as parents, we want our children to be happy, settled and able to attend the same school as their friends. As politicians, however, we have a different responsibility. We cannot simply ask, "What works for us or for people like us?". We have to be more ambitious than that. We have to want the best outcomes for all children. The current system does not deliver those outcomes. Far from being a ladder of opportunity, academic selection entrenches inequality and underachievement. The independent review of education was clear about that. Grammar-school intakes differ significantly in socio-economic profile from those of non-selective schools. Just over 12% of grammar-school pupils are entitled to free school meals, compared with around 35% in non-selective schools. The same disparities exist for pupils with additional needs and for newcomer children. Members will be quick to speak about how they personally benefited from a grammar-school education, and I do not doubt that they did. I do not doubt the quality of the education that is delivered by grammar schools or the commitment of their staff, but that is not the point. The debate is not about trashing grammar schools but about whether a single high-stakes test at 11 years old is fair, effective and evidence-based. It is not. The independent review of education cited research showing that the old, state-run system had the potential to misclassify up to two thirds of pupils by as many as three grades. That is not a small margin of error but a fundamental flaw. It dispels the argument that selection ensures that those with academic promise can fulfil that promise while others can pursue vocational opportunities. That argument might be more defensible if we had genuinely strong vocational and technical pathways, with parity of esteem, but we do not. There has been no meaningful reform in that space. Strengthening vocational pathways appears to be largely absent from the Minister's curriculum review. That should concern us all, particularly given the skills shortages that we face. Testing children at 11 on a narrow range of subjects under intense pressure is simply not a reliable predictor of future academic success. We know that because the evidence tells us that. That is why the independent review of education's recommendation to move away from a one-off test towards a broader pupil profile that is informed by statutory assessment and adaptive testing deserves serious consideration from the Minister and the Department as a way in which to phase out selection at 11. It is important that we also highlight the system's emotional cost. The mental health champion has described the transfer test as a "failure experience", one that damages self-esteem and self-worth. I saw that reality up close on Friday, when a parent came to my home after her child had underperformed in the SEAG test owing to anxiety. That child now has to carry not only anxiety but the label of failure. She is unlikely to attend the same school as her siblings and will likely be separated from her friends. I ask Members this: whose interest does that serve? Not the child's, not the family's and certainly not the education system's. If we truly believe that every child deserves to thrive, we cannot defend a system that sorts children so early, so crudely and at such personal cost.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:26 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