Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Miss M McIlveen): Good morning. You are both very welcome. I ask you to make your opening statement, and then members will follow up with some questions.

Mrs Patricia Lewsley-Mooney (Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People): I thank the Committee for inviting us here today to give evidence to its inquiry into shared education and integrated education. I welcome the Committee's decision to initiate an inquiry into these two important aspects of education in Northern Ireland and to garner the views of the stakeholders.

As many of you will be aware, the principal aim of my office is to ensure the safeguarding and promotion of the rights and best interests of children and young people. As part of my remit, I have a mandate to keep under review the adequacy and effectiveness of law, practice and services relating to the rights and best interests of children and young people. Furthermore, my office bases all its work on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child or UNCRC, as it is broadly known.

My presentation this morning will highlight the key findings emerging from a consultation that my office undertook with children and young people to explore their views and experiences of shared education. The inquiry's terms of reference address the nature and definition of shared education, key barriers to and enablers of shared education, and what priorities and actions need to be taken to improve sharing. Children and young people discussed these issues during the consultation, and I will make reference to their responses throughout this presentation.

As you know, the Department of Education established a ministerial advisory group to explore and bring forward recommendations to the Minister to advance shared education in Northern Ireland. In line with my remit, which I have just described, I offered to assist the Minister by consulting children and young people about shared education with the intention of ensuring that their views were incorporated into the ministerial advisory group's report. The focus of the consultation was on shared education; however, pupils and teachers from integrated schools participated, and, therefore, reference is also made to integrated education. Although the consultation was completed within a very short time frame, my office was eager to ensure that as many children and young people as possible were able to participate.

There were two strands. First, workshops were conducted with primary-school pupils aged between eight and 10 and post-primary pupils aged 14 to 17. Secondly, surveys were completed by children aged 10 to 11 and young people aged 16. The surveys were commissioned from Access Research Knowledge (ARK), a joint initiative between Queen's University Belfast and the University of Ulster that devises the Kids' Life and Times and Young Life and Times surveys. Two modules of questions relating to pupils' attitudes and experiences of shared education were included in each of the surveys.

Thirty-eight workshops were conducted in 21 schools across Northern Ireland, involving more than 750 primary-, post-primary and special-school pupils. A key objective was to ensure that pupils from as many school types as possible were able to participate. Care was taken to ensure that the sample of schools recruited was as representative as possible. The workshops explored pupils' awareness, understanding and experiences of shared education and their views about how it should be taken forward.

I would like to give you an overview of the findings emerging from that consultation. Less than 50% of post-primary pupils indicated that the term "shared education" was familiar to them. Where they did recognise it, this was usually due to their knowledge of, or participation in, shared classes at GCSE or A level. Very few primary pupils were aware of the concept although, after it was explained, some suggested that it referred to activities, such as joint projects or trips with other schools, in which they or other pupils had been involved. This lack of awareness was not entirely unexpected, as the term may not have been widely used in schools. A significant proportion of primary pupils indicated that they had not had any experience of shared activities.

Post-primary pupils’ experiences of shared education were, in many cases, linked to their participation in shared classes, although other shared activities were also identified, such as joint residentials, drama productions or sports events with other schools. Pupils also talked about sharing sports facilities or transport. The potential for pupils to participate in shared activities appeared to be influenced by a number of factors, including the subjects that they studied, the class or year group that they were in and their involvement in extra-curricular activities.

Children and young people who had taken part in shared classes or activities expressed a range of opinions with regard to their experiences. Both primary and post-primary pupils welcomed the opportunity to interact and make new friends with pupils from other schools. They also enjoyed the experience of different learning approaches and gaining insights into other schools. One post-primary pupil summarised many pupils’ responses by saying:

A clear benefit of shared classes for post-primary pupils was the expanded choice of subjects available at Key Stage 4 and A Level. One pupil commented that:

Some pupils reported having less positive experiences. These often occurred where they had limited or negative contact with pupils from other schools. They talked about feeling uncomfortable if they were in a minority or feeling "out of place" when they attended classes in another school. As one post-primary pupil said:

Another pupil said:

A number of logistical issues, including transport arrangements and timetabling variations between schools, also impact on pupils’ experiences.

During the consultation, children and young people were asked to think about the kind of approaches and activities that they believe would be effective in the development of shared education. A significant majority of respondents to the Kids' Life and Times and Young Life and Times surveys agreed that shared projects, classes and facilities would be a good idea. Pupils in the workshops explored this question in more detail, calling for more collaborative learning approaches to be employed and for additional subjects and activities to be included. Pupils said:

They said that for subjects like:

Pupils also highlighted the importance of introducing shared education at an early stage in a child’s schooling, undertaking preparation in advance of shared learning activities, and providing opportunities for pupils to provide feedback on their experiences.

As well as highlighting opportunities for shared education, pupils were asked if they thought that there were any barriers that might dissuade young people from taking part. In response, some students, mostly at post-primary schools, acknowledged that they would be concerned about sharing their education with pupils from particular schools. Their concerns related to academic ability, cross-community issues, standards of behaviour and the increased potential for bullying. To illustrate these concerns, a grammar school pupil commenting on a non-selective school said:

A primary-school pupil admitted:

Logistical issues, including travel arrangements, timetabling and different school rules, were cited as significant barriers by many post-primary pupils as well as by principals and teachers.

A majority of pupils thought that it was important for pupils from different schools and backgrounds to have an opportunity to learn together. Indeed, in a number of the workshops, pupils contended that the aim of shared education should not be restricted to bringing pupils from the two dominant religious traditions together but, instead, involve pupils from all types of schools. However, pupils acknowledged concerns about shared education occurring between particular school types. Reservations expressed by pupils at grammar schools have been mentioned. In response, some pupils attending non-selective schools felt that grammar pupils would regard them as "less able" and, therefore, be reluctant to become learning partners.

Pupils attending special schools were very keen to engage with their peers in other schools, although a few did admit to being:

In response, pupils from mainstream schools highlighted a number of issues that they felt needed to be considered in advance of any shared activities with pupils at special schools, including the potential for bullying, accidents, logistical difficulties and the challenge for teachers to effectively teach all pupils together.

A special school teacher also welcomed the educational opportunities for pupils through her school’s membership of an area learning community, although she noted there was also resistance on the part of some mainstream schools to engage with special schools.

Irish-medium school pupils reflected on the challenges they would encounter through collaborative learning with English-medium schools where there would be limited opportunities for them to speak Irish. Integrated school pupils expressed a willingness to engage with pupils from all schools, suggesting that their experiences and the modus operandi in integrated schools could support other schools to effectively participate in shared education.

Principals’ and teachers’ responses echoed some of the views expressed by pupils, particularly in the opportunities to build relationships and the logistical issues associated with arranging shared education activities. Additional challenges included funding, promoting shared education through cross-community links and, for a minority of teachers, managing staff or parents’ concerns.

To conclude, I would like to briefly reflect on the findings. It was evident that shared education in most post-primary schools was associated with enhanced curriculum provision and the opportunity for pupils in Years 11 to 14 to participate in joint classes with other schools. In primary schools, pupils’ experiences were generally through joint projects or trips with other schools. In some workshops, pupils indicated that participation in shared activities had only been available in specific year groups. Given the commitment in the Programme for Government for all children to have the opportunity to participate in shared education by 2015, significant efforts will be required to expand provision across all year groups in primary, post-primary and special schools if that is to be realised.

Many pupils recognised the value of shared education through the potential benefits for their learning and opportunities to develop relationships with pupils at other schools. While many recounted positive experiences, a significant minority offered less-positive feedback. Some described collaborative activities and joint classes as shared but separate, because pupils remained within their own school or friendship groups and interaction with pupils from other schools had been limited. Other young people talked about feeling uncomfortable when attending classes in another school, particularly when they were in a minority.

In taking shared education forward, it will be important that the objectives are very clearly communicated to all involved and that pupils are encouraged and supported by all stakeholders to be equal and effective collaborators. The provision of quality learning experiences must be a priority for all pupils. Appropriate mechanisms, such as school councils or buddy systems, should be put in place so that pupils' concerns can be dealt with sensitively and appropriately.

The attitudes of some post-primary pupils, particularly those who had less experience of shared education, were strongly influenced by their perceptions of other schools and pupils. Perceived differences in ability, social background and religion influenced their desire to engage in shared learning initiatives. In some cases, pupils’ views had been influenced by their parents or teachers. If shared education is to be regarded as a positive learning opportunity, there is a need to confront and challenge such preconceptions. Evidently, one of the most effective ways to do that is to involve pupils in positive shared learning initiatives. However, it will also be important to consider other ways to address pupils’ concerns prior to their participation. As one principal commented, it is:

The consultation highlighted a range of issues relating to specific school types that should be considered by the Department of Education. Pupils and principals in Irish-medium schools were keen that the Department considers how their schools could be included in shared education as it is taken forward. It will also be important to consider how mainstream schools can collaborate most effectively with special schools and be supported to address any attitudinal or practical issues that arise. As already highlighted, pupils and teachers in grammar schools also expressed reservations about the benefits of collaborative learning with pupils who attend non-selective schools.

The perspectives of pupils and staff in integrated schools were quite distinctive. While many welcomed opportunities to engage in collaborative learning with other schools, they pointed out that they were already part of an effective shared learning environment. One principal reflected:

The consultation with pupils referenced the definition of shared education that was outlined in the terms of reference for the ministerial advisory group, and that is now displayed on the Department of Education’s website. That definition references the need for shared education to provide for:

and to promote:

Findings from the consultation indicated that some shared education activities fulfilled those requirements more successfully than others. In some cases, the main objective appeared to be supporting the provision of the entitlement framework in the post-14 curriculum and pupils’ access to a wide range of courses. In others, collaboration was occurring between schools of a similar management type or ethos. If pupils are to experience shared education as defined by the Department, clear aims and objectives, to which all stakeholders can subscribe, need to be outlined at the beginning of any shared initiative. Ongoing monitoring and evaluation of activities that involves pupils should be undertaken to ensure that all objectives are met.

The 2002 and 2008 concluding observations of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, recorded its concerns that education in Northern Ireland remained largely segregated. In 2002, it recommended that the Government take measures to establish more integrated schools. In 2008, it called on government to take steps to address segregated education.

I welcome all the efforts to address separation in the education system in Northern Ireland and the introduction of measures that encourage greater collaboration and understanding and promote equality and respect for diversity. If shared education is to be implemented as envisaged by the Department, it will create both opportunities and challenges for schools. Therefore, it is vital that all those involved in the delivery of shared education are effectively supported in their efforts to provide positive and meaningful shared experiences that are educationally and socially valuable for all pupils.

The Chairperson (Miss M McIlveen): Thank you for the presentation. I am conscious that this may be the last time that you present in your current role. I do not mean my question to be a criticism. I am concerned about how we consult with young people. I know that you have carried out various consultations during your term in office, and I want to know whether there is a formalised way in which we can consult. I know that you have close links with the universities. Do you have any relationships with the education and library boards and their, maybe, more formal routes and structures?

Mrs Lewsley-Mooney: We have engaged with the education and library boards and their previous chief executives. We have had conversations with them. Obviously, we have also had those conversations with the Minister of Education. One particular area of participation we are very keen on are school councils and the opportunity for children to have their voices heard there. We will engage with the Committee during its inquiry to ensure that you hear the voice of children. That may be one mechanism by which you could gain some of the information and, in particular, the views of young people. We have engaged with many bodies across the board, particularly during my eight years in post.

The Chairperson (Miss M McIlveen): I appreciate that you have reached out and have tried to get as broad a sample as possible. However, at the same time, you were restricted to 21 schools, which is quite a tiny part of the school estate. Is there an opportunity to formalise a relationship as we move into the era of the Education Authority to have a more representative view?

Mrs Lewsley-Mooney: I am trying to get government in general to look at the issues of participation. Over the last four years, we have engaged with government in participation policy statements of intent. It has signed up to those, and we have gone back a year later and asked it what it has done. We have extended that to Departments' arm's-length bodies and have sent the same documents to the education and library boards. I recently met all but two of the new chief executives of the new councils. We wrote to 26 councils and 14 responded. We think that that is timely now, as some councils like Lisburn City Council signed up to the statement of intent but Castlereagh Borough Council did not. So, we need to ensure that, when they come together as a new super-council, they sign up from day one.

We are trying to engage so that we give some of that responsibility on to the duty bearers to ensure that they have a mechanism to engage with children and young people. That includes the education and library boards and the health trusts. There are 29 bodies, in addition to 11 of the 12 Departments, that have signed up to the participation policy statements of intent. That is the kind of ongoing work that we are doing to get government and its arm's-length bodies to think about engagement and the participation of children and young people.

Dr Alison Montgomery (Office of the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People): Sorry to interrupt, but I want to add one wee point. We have discussed with the Department of Education the questions that we used and the engagement that we had with children and young people in the surveys and the workshops. It is going to take the questions that we used in the Kids' Life and Times survey and the Young Life and Times survey and administer them every two years with pupils across schools to get some sense of their engagement with shared education and their experiences of it.

I agree, Chair, that the sample size was small, but that was down to the time constraints that we had in order to contribute to the ministerial advisory group's work. The 21 schools represented every type of school in Northern Ireland, taking into account sectors, ethos, location and so on. So, the number of schools was small, but there was a good number of pupils involved.

The Chairperson (Miss M McIlveen): I am not being critical of the fact that it was small.

Dr Montgomery: Yes, but we are aware that it was a modest sample.

The Chairperson (Miss M McIlveen): I understand that there is a challenge with time constraints and so on, but I was just wondering whether there is some other way —

Mrs Lewsley-Mooney: There has to be a better mechanism; I agree with you. That is why we have been doing some work on participation to try to encourage organisations and arm's-length bodies and Government to look at the issue of participation and mainstream it so that, when the Department of Education or education and library boards are looking at their policy or legislation, they include the voices of children and young people.

In the last couple of weeks, before I leave office, I have been going round schools, events and venues where young people have been over the eight years. I am still hearing the same message, namely, "Our voice is not being listened to." On the issue of shared education, I spoke to young people in Enniskillen who talked about the shared campus. They said, "All we hear is the talk of the adults. Nobody asked us what we think."

The Chairperson (Miss M McIlveen): You will be aware that the Education Bill is likely to include the provision that requires the authority to encourage, facilitate and promote shared education. Taking that as it is, how can that be assessed with regards to participation among schools?

Mrs Lewsley-Mooney: It needs to be written into the detail of the guidelines that come out of any legislation around shared education that children and young people must be included. I can only go back to the work that we are doing with the Department of the Environment around its guidelines on community planning to ensure that children and young people's voices are included and are specifically mentioned. So, if you are looking at the legislation that will flow from this work on shared education, we need to ensure that children and young people are mentioned in it, are embedded in it and that their voices are heard throughout the process and in the evaluation and monitoring of it.

The Chairperson (Miss M McIlveen): Would you say that that is your key recommendation?

Mrs Lewsley-Mooney: Very much so.

Mr Lunn: Thank you very much for your presentation. We seem to be have been getting mixed messages. One thing about asking children for an opinion is that they give it to you straight: they have not acquired our diplomatic skills, so they just tell you what is on their minds, and that is brilliant. So, when I saw that a grammar school pupil said that, although they did not want to be stuck-up, collaborating with the secondary schools would hold them back, I would not like to think that that is a representative view, and it makes me worry about the size of the sample. Can I take it that that was an individual comment and not a general theme in the responses that you got from grammar schools?

Dr Montgomery: We were in four grammar schools, three of which had quite extensive shared education opportunities, mostly through GCSE and A-level courses. In three of the schools, all of the young people talked about some of the concerns they had about engaging with non-selective schools. Only one of the grammar schools was unanimously positive about the engagement with non-selective schools. The other schools had some reservations.

The thing to say about the sample is that we were trying to collect a diversity of opinion from young people, so we really wanted to get a range of views. In some cases, the young people had not participated in shared learning opportunities, and, in others, those were also the grammar schools speaking. There is work to be done to reassure pupils that their learning will not necessarily be threatened in any way or that it will be disadvantageous to them to engage in learning with other schools. There is a strong perception in some grammar schools, which also came from teachers and parents, around the concern that, if their child or the pupil were taking an A-level course in a non-selective school, they would not experience the same level.

Mrs Lewsley - Mooney: The important thing is that, if someone has a misconception or a fear of something, it needs to be addressed, and that is where shared education needs to go beyond the academic strand. It is about understanding and respecting and listening to the voice of young people, and it is about, if they have a concern, how that can be dealt with and how those concerns can be met. Again, some of that may be around influence from teachers or parents, but it could also be just something that they have heard somewhere and may not be reality. It is about how a school deals with that and ensures that all the pupils who get involved in any kind of shared education are valued.

Mr Lunn: It seems to me that if you take sharing as being a process of trying to improve educational outcomes, almost the best form of sharing is probably between a successful grammar school and a slightly less successful secondary school down the road. It does worry me, and what the children say is kind of instinctive. When you get an attitude from teachers from grammar schools and parents with children there that they effectively do not want to be bothered and think that it might hold their children back and cannot see the virtue of giving a helping hand in particular subjects at particular levels to a school that needs that help, that is a bit disappointing.

Mrs Lewsley - Mooney: That is assuming that their perception is right. The children who come from the non-selective school could probably be just as capable and able when they merge and do the subject together. Again, some of this is around perception.

Mr Lunn: Yes, absolutely. Finally, the other perception is about the reaction of children in integrated schools, who seem to have made the point that they are perfectly happy to collaborate with other schools but are already actually doing it in their own school. Have you any comment about that reaction?

Mrs Lewsley - Mooney: I think that it is about looking at all the models of good practice and sharing it across the board. If integrated schools already think that they are doing some of that, then sharing with other schools will help to enhance the other schools.

Dr Montgomery: Indeed, some of the primary pupils said that they might be able to show pupils in other schools how they get on in their school. They were seeing themselves as educators, in a sense, so it was positive.

Mr Lunn: That moves you on to the societal aspect. I am sure that an integrated school and another school in the locality could collaborate perfectly well; there is no reason why they should not. However, there may be an opportunity for the other school to learn exactly that there are no bogeymen here and this is a perfectly valid way to do your education.

Mr Rogers: Apologies for having to leave in the middle, and apologies if this question has been asked already. You have given a useful insight on the whole thing from the schools' point of view. Would it be helpful if we were to have a definition of what shared education is and had, say, a five-point scale to measure a level of sharing? There seems to be such a range. For example, we discussed St Columbanus in Bangor in last night's Adjournment debate. We have integrated schools at one end of the spectrum and then we have two schools that may have an annual visit to the pantomime. Would it be helpful for schools and everybody if we were to have a five-point scale to measure the level of sharing?

Dr Montgomery: I am not sure whether you necessarily need a five-point scale, but I think that it would be helpful to provide a more detailed definition, for a start, about what shared education is actually about and to open up on what the aims and objectives are and very clearly outline that. What are the outcomes that you are looking for? How do you measure the impact? That could involve, for example, looking to the community relations, equality and diversity (CRED) policy in the sense of how it is structured. It goes into a lot of detail about the aims and objectives and the values and principles; but it is also about what you are seeking to achieve at the end through meaningful interaction, pupils' full participation and involving pupils in the planning and evaluation of shared education. There are a lot of different shared experiences, and it could be about sharing resources.

There is a question about what benefit the sharing of resources has for children's learning and social development when they perhaps never meet the pupils from the school that they are sharing the resources with. We then go right through to pupils going to another school on a regular basis or meeting somewhere in a neutral location and engaging in a very effective and meaningful way.

I suppose that you could say that there is a continuum in what shared education is, what it is achieving and its impact on pupils. I am not sure about a five-point scale, but you could certainly seek to define different levels of sharing.

Mr Rogers: You talked about the barriers, and it was very interesting to listen to the views of pupils and so on. Do you find the geography of the whole thing, particularly in rural areas, a major barrier to sharing?

Mrs Lewsley - Mooney: Some of it was down to the cost of transport, the distance between schools or other issues. It is not about one cap fits all, but how you can be flexible in a number of schools to be inclusive and for them to see the best way of doing that. Sometimes, part of that will be that the funding schools might need to be able to partake in some of those activities.

Mr Newton: I thank the commissioner and Dr Montgomery for coming along. I want to ask two questions. I think that you partially answered my first question when answering Mr Lunn's question. Is shared education generally perceived as a threat or an opportunity? In addressing some of Mr Lunn's remarks, you concentrated on the academic aspect of grammar schools. In a wider context, is it perceived as a threat or an opportunity?

I will ask both questions together. On page 70 of your report, under area-based planning, you stated that:

Will you expand on that and tell us what those concerns were and how they were seen as? Presumably, they saw it as having a negative impact, but maybe they saw it as positive.

Dr Montgomery: I will respond to your second question first. As part of the consultation, we asked pupils for their views of area-based planning, what they knew about it, what they understood about it and what they saw as opportunities and possible threats. In a sense, younger pupils were concerned about getting together with pupils from other schools who they did not know and their schools becoming too big and deflecting the teaching and learning provisions in the school. Bullying came up a lot among primary school pupils, and there were concerns that they would be meeting or having to be educated with pupils from other schools who were nasty, unkind or who did not want to play with them. So, at that level, there were concerns about what that would mean in different groups of pupils. There were also concerns about having to travel if you had to go to another school and, if their school amalgamated with another, that they would have to wear a different uniform. It was issues like that.

Principals and teachers were also consulted during the consultation. They voiced concerns that the approach to area-based planning did not adopt an open approach, but was more about making changes within the existing network. They felt that it was not a blue sky type of thinking. The changes were occurring in sectors so that there was a potential restructuring in the maintained sector, the controlled sector and so on.

Pupils' concerns were about what it would mean for them and their schools if they were to amalgamate with another and how that would affect their friendship circles and their learning. They were also about bullying and the other types of issues that I mentioned. Those were the key issues.

Patricia, do you want to take the other question?

Mrs Lewsley - Mooney: Which one was that?

Dr Montgomery: It was about opportunities.

Mrs Lewsley - Mooney: OK —

Dr Montgomery: Sorry, Patricia. Overall, 60% to 65% of pupils were very positive about shared education and the opportunities, academic or social, that it creates. However, a significant minority also raised concerns. So, even pupils who said that it was great to meet pupils from other schools and that it had expanded their friendship circles said that they did not like the fact that they were in a minority when they went to another school to participate in classes. They found that a bit difficult.

At times, it was difficult to quantify their responses, because they often said something very positive and then reflected on it and said that a certain aspect was not so great. That is why it is difficult to say clearly that a certain percentage was wholly positive or wholly negative. Most pupils were very positive. They saw the opportunities, but they also recognised the challenges.

Mrs Lewsley - Mooney: That is important; it is about how you manage those challenges and what needs to be put in to address the concerns of young people in particular.

Dr Montgomery: I remember one primary school's pupils saying that it was a good idea but that you had to be careful how you go about it. That is how he summarised it, and I thought that that was very wise. We almost called the report, "Be careful how you go about it".

Mr Lunn: He should be a politician.

Mr Newton: Whoever said that will go far.

Mr Lunn: He will end up up here.

Ms Maeve McLaughlin: Thank you both. I want to go back to the issue of the definition. I have listened carefully to what you said about the almost levels and tiers of definition of shared education. Commissioner, if your organisation had a magic wand, would the priority of definition be about sharing resources or respect, tolerance and mutual understanding? What would the priority be?

Mrs Lewsley - Mooney: There are a number of issues. After the researcher was done — Alison was obviously much more involved in that than I was, as she was speaking to the children — I saw that young people see the benefit of shared education and think that it is a positive opportunity. However, a lot of work needs to be done around the understanding, respect and diversity that come from all different types of schools. That has to underpin whatever legislation comes out of this. We must ensure that young people feel comfortable when they go to another school, that it works for them and that it makes a difference. They must also feel able to make a contribution and feel equal to all those who are involved in the shared education project.

Ms Maeve McLaughlin: I want to play devil's advocate. If it is ultimately about work on understanding and, I assume, good relations and tolerance, does that mean that educational outcomes are secondary?

Mrs Lewsley - Mooney: I do not think that they are secondary; they can run alongside that. It is in an educational environment, and education and educational outcomes are obviously important.

We are asking for shared places and spaces. If young people are to be educated in those shared spaces and places, we need to ensure that there is a mutual understanding and respect for each other and that they feel equal when they are going into those places to be educated.

Ms Maeve McLaughlin: What I picked up from your presentation was that there is a variety in the definition of shared education, but that more clarity is needed for integrated education. Do you see integrated education as the logical conclusion of the shared education process?

Mrs Lewsley - Mooney: Integrated education is part of the process and part of education in the wider sense. We support that. Whatever process comes out of this has to be embedded in equality, a strong ethos around education and very strong aims and objectives in how it will be delivered. As I have said from the very beginning, the most important thing is the voice of young people, how they see it working for them and what the barriers are.

Ms Maeve McLaughlin: Finally, Chair, if I may. You have made a very clear call for definition, but there is a variety of views. What evidence do we have that shared education processes will provide or produce more socially, economically viable and religiously diverse schools?

Mrs Lewsley - Mooney: That is why you need to start the process: to see how you can engage with the schools, the teachers and the children to get to a better place. When we start something, I am always worried about making it too rigid. There will be different flexibilities, from urban to rural to other places, that will be required. However, if you want to achieve the same outcome, it will sometimes take some areas longer to get there than others. It is important that the journey is at least begun.

Mr McCausland: Your use of the word "equality" was interesting. On page 6 of the report, a very good point is made:

That is stated as being hugely important. Your work is obviously based on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Mention is made specifically of article 29. Article 29(c) states:

Built into that are the concepts of social cohesion and cultural diversity.

In that context, if you are thinking about children coming together from different school backgrounds, if shared education is going to work they will have to be able to come together on a base of equal and effective collaborators. Pierre Trudeau said of Canada's relationship with America that it was like being in bed with an elephant. We want a situation where children come together on the basis of equality if collaboration is going to work.

Was there anything to suggest that, with schools in different sectors, and even those in a particular sector, having different approaches to cultural traditions, children who are coming together may not be doing so on a base of equal collaborators. Children will come with a cultural tradition from the home, but if the school does not affirm that, it is left to the home. Some schools affirm cultural tradition much more than others.

Article 31(2) states:

There is an onus on different sectors to provide equally for cultural traditions. How do you see that? Did that arise as an issue? Maybe it is something that the children are not aware of, or maybe, although they would not express it in those terms, it is something that they are conscious of. There may be a fear of "They know more than I do" or "they do more".

Mrs Lewsley - Mooney: I will let Alison come in on that, because, as I said, she was more involved in the process. The important part is that there is understanding, and maybe that is why single identity work needs to be done in a school before you bring two schools together. When you bring children or young people together, they must have an understanding and respect for each other's difference, diversity, culture or whatever it is so that they are not going in with preconceptions on some of the issues that were raised in the findings.

If a young person feels that their voice is not being heard, that needs to be addressed. Similarly, if someone finds it difficult or uncomfortable, that needs to be addressed as well,

Dr Montgomery: In answer to your question, the issue was touched on, more in post-primary schools. First, was there an awareness on the part of some pupils that they were engaging with pupils who were from another cultural tradition? In some cases, they would say, "We got together with the school down the road", but they did not seem to be aware that the children from that school were coming from a different cultural or religious background. In some cases there was not even awareness that the other children were different.

On the issue of concerns, some pupils identified the potential for difficulties in engaging with children from other cultural backgrounds. Sometimes, that was in advance of engaging in shared education opportunities to outline what might be an issue or a difficulty. Other pupils were very open and said:

You mentioned equality as well. That comes up when small numbers of pupils go to another school to take part in shared classes. On a number of occasions, we found that maybe only one or two pupils from one school were going to another. They found that quite difficult, because they really were in a minority.

Mr McCausland: Would it not also apply in the context of the experience, education and understanding of their cultural identity? Say you go to an Irish-medium school. There is a cultural ethos there of Irishness. That is taught and it permeates all that the school does; that is the purpose of the school. Another school may tread very lightly around cultural traditions.

Dr Montgomery: There is probably an issue around support for teachers in advance of engaging in some of the work. We did say very clearly in the report that a lot of experience, expertise and knowledge has been built up through work done through the CRED policy. We found that many teachers, particularly in primary schools, felt that they had developed a lot of understanding around that kind of work, both single-identity work and work with other schools. There is a lot of expertise out there amongst teachers; it is about sharing that and finding ways of utilising it. In integrated schools, teachers have experience of dealing with controversial issues on a daily basis. It is about harnessing some of that expertise and knowledge and sharing it as shared education goes forward. There is work to be done.

Mr McCausland: I want to make two very brief points. Under 31(2), have you, as the commission, ever looked at the equality of cultural provision in different education sectors? On reporting and monitoring the implementation of the charter, have you ever looked at that?

Dr Montgomery: I suppose that we look at it in an educational context. We certainly take it into account when considering the provision of education, whether that is looking at special educational needs or —

Mr McCausland: It is specific. It says:

We are not talking about whether children have access to being taught maths or whatever.

Mrs Lewsley - Mooney: It has never been raised with me, as commissioner, that a child feels that it is being denied its right to learn about its culture in school.

Mr McCausland: The child would not raise it if they do not know that they have that right. In that context, how can you report on the thing? What is the current cycle of United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) reporting?

Mrs Lewsley - Mooney: It is supposed to be every five years. The last time we reported was in 2008 and the Committee is behind in delivering some of that. It looks as if the next report will not be until 2016, although the UK Government, which are the state party that have to report, have already progressed their report, and it has been handed in to the Committee.

Mr McCausland: What consultation was there in Northern Ireland?

Mrs Lewsley - Mooney: OFMDFM is responsible for that input.

Mr McCausland: You are not aware of that.

Mrs Lewsley - Mooney: I am aware of it, and we had conversations. However, we did not actually see it. The problem is that it goes into a UK report. Very often, it is more English-centric when it goes to the Committee. We have had that issue. The four commissioners across the UK put in their own report, and we raised specific issues with regard to our own jurisdictions in that report. We have not compiled ours yet, because we have not been given a date for when we have to have it ready. We hear that it will be around 2016, although, obviously, it should have been in 2013.

We have copies and can share those with you.

Mr McCausland: That would be useful. Thank you.

Mrs Overend: Thank you for your presentation. We have had an interesting discussion about the definition of shared education and do not need to go over that again. You mentioned that some pupils of primary-school age were not even aware of the term "shared education". I do not think that that is a bad thing, as long as they get on with it. As they get older, I suppose that they understand the academic benefits of shared education. If they have clear goals, shared education will benefit other aspects of their education.

Are you saying that schools should be supported in pursuing shared education? Do you think that that support should be provided via an external facilitator?

Mrs Lewsley-Mooney: On your first point, a ministerial advisory group was set up to look at shared education. So, we were using the term "shared education" when we spoke to children. When we explained to them what it meant, we found that they felt that they had taken part in that kind of shared education experience, which was important. Whatever comes out of the debate on shared education, there is, obviously, a need for support for schools and teachers, as we are advising today. That support would be up to the Department when it decides how the shared education project should be rolled out. The Department will have to consider what kind of support teachers should have. It will have to determine whether it should be external or something that it should do through its own training units, or whatever.

Mrs Overend: I am trying to ask what your opinion is on what would be the best way of providing that support.

Dr Montgomery: There is a lot of expertise in the sector already. A lot of the schools that we worked with had already developed effective links with other schools, whether that was through area learning communities, for example, or by taking forward personal development and mutual understanding ( PDMU), citizenship, the community relations, equality and diversity (CRED) programme, and so on.

The youth sector also has a lot of expertise and knowledge in bringing young people together and in less formal learning activities, which would, I think, be very helpful in preparing young people before they engage in shared education initiatives with other schools. Our view is that you should look to teachers because they have already developed knowledge and understanding. There could also be opportunities in initial teacher education and ongoing continuing professional development (CPD) to support teachers in taking this forward. Look to the experts: they are already carrying out their work and teaching.

Mrs Overend: I am aware that certain types of school might be more willing than others to pursue shared education. You might need an external facilitator to help those that are less willing to pursue shared education and give them further guidance or support.

Dr Montgomery: I do not think that we are ruling out the employment of external facilitators, if that would help to give schools more confidence to engage. Our feeling is that there is a lot —

Mrs Lewsley-Mooney: The important thing is that all schools buy into this. Some schools will need more support than others. That is why I go back to flexibility: one cap does not fit all. It is about how schools are supported in how they do this. There are models of good practice that some schools may share. Others may decide that they want to go along another avenue, and they may need support in other ways. It is important that that flexibility is there.

Mrs Overend: As has been said, it is a wide definition. Schools are at different stages of shared education, and every stage is good. Thank you very much.

The Chairperson (Miss M McIlveen): There are no further questions, so thank you very much for your time and the presentation. Patricia, I wish you well in whatever lies ahead.

Mrs Lewsley-Mooney: Thank you very much.