Debate contribution: Academic Selection

Debate contribution by Mr Pat Sheehan on 3 February 2026.

MLA

Mr Pat Sheehan

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 5362976

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

For fear of being interrogated about what type of school I went to, I will say that I did the 11-plus, sailed through it without stress, went to a grammar school and then left it and went to a non-grammar school. I then went on to further education and later did a degree in higher education. I have been around the block, as they say. I have lots of experience, but I would not want policy to be built on the experience that I or other individuals have. If you can pull 4,000 or 5,000 others together and get academics in to do proper research, we can use that as evidence of how the system is working. I know that the issue prompts strongly held views, but, be that as it may, as legislators and policymakers, we have to look at and listen to the evidence. That is our job. Probably no other area of public policy has had such a volume of research evidence, and that evidence is overwhelmingly negative in relation to academic selection. There is no argument about whether our grammar schools produce excellent outcomes; of course, they do. The leader of the Ulster Unionist Party has talked about St Dominic's a couple of times today. My mother attended St Dominic's, as did my two sisters and some of my nieces. I know that it is an excellent school, but fewer than 15% of its pupils are on free school meals. That is a theme that runs through the grammar schools. We are told that academic selection is about giving kids from a disadvantaged background a hand-up and some social mobility, but the evidence shows how few of our children who are entitled to free school meals attend those grammar schools.

Yes, I will give way briefly.

There are many things that need to be changed, and one of the primary issues is academic selection. Grammar schools produce good educational outcomes — I accept that many of them do — because they get the cream of the crop. They get the students with the best ability and the students whose parents who have been able to pay for private tuition for them. I asked this earlier, David: how many kids from the Shankill get to go to grammar schools? How many kids from the Shankill have parents who can afford the £35 or £40 an hour for private tuition? That gives kids from advantaged backgrounds a leg-up too. Just because our grammar schools produce excellent results, it does not mean that we have the world-class education system that I often hear unionists talk about; far from it. In fact, we have the longest tail of educational underachievement on these islands. Sir Bob Salisbury, the renowned educationalist, said a few years ago that we have the longest tail of educational underachievement in western Europe. We certainly have the most segregated education system in terms of advantage and disadvantage. The education system just 30 miles down the road is a hell of a lot better than the education system that we have here. The results coming out of the education system in the South far exceed the educational outcomes here. It has shown that a non-selective system —.

Yes, I will give way briefly.

Yes, I agree with that. The system in the South can raise standards without selection, while reducing early school leaving and supporting children to stay engaged in education. Selection is not a requirement for excellence; it is a barrier to it.

I will give way very briefly. If you are not brief, I will tell you to sit down.

I am not a total supporter of the system in the South, and I would like the issue of private schooling to be dealt with. I want to focus on the long tail of educational underachievement. One of the big claims about academic selection is that it promotes social mobility: is that true? Does it? We hear people say, "The working-class boy done good. He got his 11-plus", and the boy may have got to Methody, Campbell College or wherever, but the evidence tells us that it does not promote social mobility.

We have only to look at how few children on free school meals qualify to attend grammar schools. What is it about the clear evidence that unionists do not want to accept?

It is clear that arguments defending academic selection rarely draw on empirical evidence and instead rely on egalitarian rhetoric that serves only to obscure systemic inequalities. The argument is also made that parents should have the choice to send their children to whatever school they want. I heard Jon Burrows make that claim earlier in the debate. In reality, parents do not have the choice. Rather, it is the grammar schools that decide which pupils to take. It is not just academic selection but the cost of the uniform that is a barrier to children's attending some grammar schools. In Committee, we heard evidence that some schools' uniforms cost up to 800 quid. For the parent who is on benefits or on a low income, that automatically rules their child out of going to that school. One of the biggest issues in the debate is that unionism not just rejects the evidence but is not even prepared to look at it. A former DUP Minister of Education set up the 'A Fair Start' expert panel on educational underachievement among Protestant boys, but — guess what? — academic selection was not part of its remit. The current DUP Minister commissioned Lucy Crehan to carry out a review of the curriculum. Despite the fact that there is clear evidence that primary-school teaching is distorted and warped as a result of preparation for the selection test — guess what? — Lucy Crehan was told that academic selection was not part of her remit. Why? It is because there is none so blind as those who do not want to see. That is how the DUP and the UUP approach the issue of academic selection. Some Members have dismissed the notion that children are harmed by academic selection. What do the experts say? The mental health champion, Siobhán O'Neill, has said that academic selection is "unethical and harmful". There is a whole body of research by reputable international organisations and individuals that supports her assessment. I am asking Members to study the evidence, which is overwhelming. Academic selection has nothing to offer our education system. It does not promote social mobility. According to the experts, it is harmful, unethical and leads to inequality. Academic selection also distorts and warps the primary-school curriculum. Its abolition is not a panacea for our education system, but it is about fairness, evidence and putting children first. If we truly believe in equality of opportunity, we cannot keep defending a system that does the opposite. I appeal to everyone — anyone who has an open mind — to look at the evidence.

1,168 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:30 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