Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): From the Department of Education (DE), I welcome Mrs Faustina Graham, the director of collaborative education and practice; Dr Suzanne Kingon, the head of the Irish-medium and integrated education team; Ms Joanne Maxwell from the shared education and community relations team; and Ms Jacqui Durkin, the director of area planning.

The Committee will review the clause-by-clause table and seek answers from the Department on any outstanding queries. At this stage, we will ask members for an informal indication of proposed amendments, and, for each of the proposed amendments, the Committee will be asked to indicate whether it wishes to pursue them or at least to give them further consideration before we take a final decision from a Committee point of view next week.

I ask the Department to make a short opening statement. I know that you have brought a proposed amendment that was covered in recent correspondence, but you may want to deal with that in a short opening statement.

Mrs Faustina Graham (Department of Education): I will ask Jacqui to deal with the amendment later.

Thank you for the opportunity to make some opening remarks on the Bill. I will focus and recap on three key areas: the purpose of the Bill; the interdependence of the Bill and the policy — in other words, what we need to do to advance shared education; and the practical outworking — how we are actually doing it. The Bill has three distinct purposes: to provide a legislative definition of shared education; to place a power on the Department and relevant arm's-length bodies to encourage and facilitate shared education; and to enact a commencement order on the provision in the Education Act 2014 that places a duty on the Education Authority (EA) to encourage, facilitate and promote shared education.

Much has been said about the definition of shared education in the Bill. By defining it in line with the Executive's commitment in the Programme for Government, we sought to give all young people an opportunity to participate in shared education. Consequently, the definition sets out the minimum essential requirements, which are those of religious belief and socio-economic background. As indicated in our correspondence with the Committee, there is reasonable and objective justification for doing so, as set out in human rights case law.

The policy underpins the definition with a description that encourages educational partnerships to move beyond those minimum essential requirements and to examine how their work can include wider section 75 categories. We have already seen that happening in the practical outworking of shared education projects with groups of children and young people. Ironically, referencing all the section 75 categories in the legislative definition risks exclusion rather than inclusion. It would, for example, exclude two small rural primary schools with no children from ethnic minorities from participating together in shared education, or, equally, it would exclude two all-girls schools from working together in partnership.

The minimum essential requirements, by contrast, encourage schools to enter into a spirit of cooperation and inclusion and to get on with the actual learning. The alternative is spending time seeking a partner organisation with which they can demonstrate compliance with a wide list of requirements. I cannot think of a school that I have been in where the vision and values do not already reflect inclusivity. In your inquiry, you have commented that our children and young people and their teachers are way ahead of any of us in the learning that takes place in classrooms, and I am sure that we could echo that sentiment for the youth sector and early years provision. The important thing is to allow that learning to flourish.

The policy, self-assessment framework and individual project criteria will provide a robust, supportive delivery framework. The range of projects over the next few years will develop various aspects of shared education and allow considered decisions to be made on mainstreaming, as outlined in the policy. Schools, in particular, will have to provide clear evidence of the importance of shared education in setting their targets in their school development plans. Their work will be subject to ongoing inspection, aside from the project evaluations that we already have in train. Encouraging and describing good practice through the policy is the correct approach; a legal stipulation that will render compliance extremely difficult is not.

I turn to clause 2, which provides a power to encourage and facilitate shared education. The Bill covers a very wide range of educational providers: early years provision, schools and youth work. That is to allow for flexibility of approach and combinations of partnerships. A power provides discretion in managing the educational budget in a way that will advance shared education but without significant impact on other educational priorities. If that same range of stakeholders falls within a duty, the sheer number of settings operating with an already challenged education budget means that there will never be enough funding to meet the applications of all stakeholders at all times. A power not only provides statutory recognition of shared education but allows the Department of Education to prioritise key areas of spend and activity at any given time without the diversion and risk of legal proceedings that a duty could bring from that wide range of settings. Money spent on litigation may have been better spent on children's learning.

A statutory duty to encourage and facilitate is appropriate for relatively small developing sectors, such as the integrated and Irish-medium sectors. It supports their continued embedding and growth through targeted, earmarked funding schemes or reasonable adjustments to wider policies.

It is important to say that shared education is neither a sector nor a particular type of school: it is a relatively new and evolving concept of partnership, to be embraced by all our existing schools, youth providers and early years provision. We need to accrue good practice learning before placing a legal obligation on our education system that entails mandatory action.

The public consultation confirmed mixed views as to the relevance of a power versus a duty. A power will provide a balanced approach for those who strongly advocate consensus building over legislation as the way forward.

Clause 3 enacts the commencement of the duty on the Education Authority and provides for the definition of shared education to apply to that duty.

Clause 4 sets out the short title and provides for the Act to come into operation on the day after Royal Assent.

I now hand over to my colleague Jacqui Durkin to talk to you about the amendment.

Ms Jacqui Durkin (Department of Education): Members will be aware that the potential need for the additional clause was raised at a previous briefing on 4 November. The Minister has now agreed to seek to introduce this clause at Consideration Stage, and you will no doubt have a copy of the draft wording among your papers.

By way of background, the shared education campuses programme was launched by the Minister in January 2014 to deliver one of the headline action targets in OFMDFM's Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) strategy and to commence 10 new shared education campuses by 2018. You may be aware that the first three projects are progressing in planning, and those are in Moy, Limavady and Ballycastle. Those shared campuses are pioneer projects of how school buildings and facilities will be provided. As such, they have raised new issues for the Department and the school managing authorities in the purchase and ownership of land and management/governance arrangements.

A key issue is the purchase and ownership of land for the shared campuses, which will be jointly occupied by two or more schools from two or more school management sectors. We have considered possible options to address the issue in discussions with legal representatives. A possible option has emerged in the form of the setting up a company to facilitate landholding arrangements and the management of shared education campuses. The company would be formed equally by the Education Authority and the school trustees as owners of the schools involved. Currently, however, no specific legislation allows the Department or the Education Authority to establish and participate in a company for such purposes. Legal advice has been that it would be preferable to have specific legislative authority to avoid the risk of a successful challenge to the question of vires or legal authority on the issue. The Minister is, therefore, seeking to introduce the clause at Consideration Stage for insertion after clause 2, the clause to be restricted to the purposes of shared education.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Thank you for your opening statements. We will move on to discuss each clause. Obviously, it is dependent on [Inaudible.]

. The Committee has already had some informal discussion, so it may be worthwhile in each case, without prejudice, to get your reactions on where we are.

Clause 1 provides the common definition. The first area that we had a range of views on was the purpose of shared education. You have our clause-by-clause table, in which comments 1.1 to 1.12 are relevant. Those look at the potential need for a purpose clause or something of that nature. It is fair comment to say that, after discussion, the Committee feels that a purpose clause may not directly serve a particular purpose — forgive the pun — on the basis that it may muddy the waters. However, it has been suggested to us that there should be a review clause that looks at a number of aspects of the work of shared education. Perhaps the Committee Clerk could read the list.

The Committee Clerk: The list reads educational attainments; the efficient and effective use of resources; the progress or extent of sharing; allowing community cohesion; and interactions with section 75 groups, leading to attitudinal improvement.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): It is something of that nature. We do not as yet have a draft amendment. Can I have your general reaction to that? Maybe you could outline the current plans for monitoring and reviewing the way in which shared education is being implemented. If, for example, there is a review-and-report mechanism that periodically produces a report, where do you see that drawing its information from? What do you believe to be an appropriate time cycle? How many years would be required between each report? Please speak without prejudice as to whether you believe it to be necessary.

Mrs Graham: In my opening statement, I said that this area was evolving and developing. We are trying to learn in the whole process. I did not refer to the various planning stages that will take place. We have the Delivering Social Change (DSC) signature project, which is in train. That is targeted at schools that already have a significant degree of sharing, so those projects will be covered in that area. That will be followed by Peace IV, which comes on stream next year. The schools, youth organisations and early years provision that will be targeted through that do not have a history of sharing, so they will be starting the process. Collectively, with those two programmes, we are looking to ensure that all young people will be given an opportunity to participate in shared education. That does not mean that everyone will take it up, but the opportunity will be provided.

In planning for that, we did not start from nothing. We looked at everything that had happened previously, in particular at all the work that was done through the International Fund for Ireland's sharing in education programme, in which there were 23 projects. That was evaluated by the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI). Over the period of the programme, 19 individual projects engaged in looking at the indicators that show progress in shared education. With that work, we were really starting from scratch. Based on the recommendations in the Education and Training Inspectorate's report, the work has been cumulative. With the DSC programme and, subsequently, the Peace IV programme, we commissioned the Education and Training Inspectorate to develop a continuum that would allow, in the first instance with the DSC programme, schools to self-evaluate and baseline where the partnership is with regard to their starting point in shared education. That continuum has four separate sections. Schools can be at any stage in the continuum around the four key pillars of Every School a Good School, so this is firmly centred on school improvement and DE policy.

The Education and Training Inspectorate has visited all the schools in tranche 1 of the DSC programme, and that will continue. Those schools will be revisited in March 2016. We are trying to look at how we can monitor the learning that has taken place, with a view to accruing best practice. The focus is very much on a constructive approach; it is not meant to be viewed or perceived as a normal inspection of an individual school. It is about looking at the partnership to see how we can accrue good practice.

There will be an interim report and a DSC programme from the ETI at the end of next year, and a final report in 2018.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Faustina, that is what is happening at present. As we move ahead, a range of projects will, presumably, emerge. Reading between the lines, I take it that there could be ongoing evaluation and monitoring, on which the ETI will provide the lead, so it will be able to draw out the information in connection with that. If a review and reporting mechanism were to arise from the legislation, do you have any thoughts on an appropriate timescale? For the sake of argument, should a report be laid once every three years, for instance? What would you see —

Ms Joanne Maxwell (Department of Education): We have already established some questions that will be included in the young life and times survey. It looks at attitudinal changes that will be captured. Those will be done, I think, every other year. That will look at attitudinal changes as we progress along the route of shared education.

Mrs Graham: Our intention is that there will be a specific inclusion of shared education in the chief inspector's biennial report, because it pertains to the entire education system, including youth provision and early years. In all this work, we have been trying to make it as integral to our normal educational system as possible.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): If that is the case, the Committee may look at something explicit by way of a review and reporting mechanism, but I think that there is a desire not to overburden or increase the burden that might be tied in with that biennial report.

Mrs Graham: That is our intention. We must also ensure that all our providers do not see this as an additional bureaucratic burden. It is about helping providers to see that this should be integral to their work and is not something that is additional or an add-on. The same is true of data collection or any type of work that we will do with them. It is about trying to minimise that and encouraging people to see this as part and parcel of good practice in schools, youth work or early years provision.

Dr Suzanne Kingon (Department of Education): Before any funding — at the minute, the DSC — goes into individual shared education programmes, they are subject to a robust expenditure appraisal and business case process. The business case sets out measurable targets. There are quantitative targets, such as targets for improvements in levels of progression and attitude, using the scales set out by Queen's, and, as Faustina referenced, the qualitative changes. They are then traced down to individual project level, where, through the school development planning process, schools set their own individual targets. For future programmes like Peace, each programme will be subject to an individual business case that sets those targets. At the end of that, we monitor. We carry out post-project evaluation and monitor that. Quite a lot of reporting is already there. I emphasise that it is robust. It leads from the business case at the beginning to the post-project evaluation at the end, and it is at system level and individual school level.

Mrs Overend: You say that shared education should be integral to the work that schools do and not an add-on, yet not every school has to participate. The legislation simply provides an opportunity to have shared education; not every school has to do it.

Mrs Graham: There is not a requirement on every school to do it. The important thing is that schools are charged with realising the Northern Ireland curriculum to its optimum. That is their statutory requirement, and a school may believe that it can do that without participating in shared education. I think that, over time, we will demonstrate that, to realise the curriculum to its optimum, it would be very difficult not to work with other schools and not to participate in that way, because we are looking at all the skills, attitudes and dispositions in the Northern Ireland curriculum. It may be that a school could not participate in shared education and continue to get very impressive GCSE and A-level results. The question that we are trying to answer is this: will they be more impressive as a result of participating in shared education? Is a young person a more rounded, independent learner and a more active contributor to society as a result of investing in those partnerships? The evidence certainly seems to point that way. That is the idea of a school that is "outstanding" in its provision as opposed to "good" or "satisfactory". It is aiming for the best outcomes.

Mr Newton: Faustina used a phrase that ties in with that point. She talked about allowing "learning to flourish". That encapsulates a lot. Given where Sandra is coming from — correct me if I am wrong — it would not be a requirement for every school to participate. Some schools just could not participate, whatever the circumstances might be. The fact that a school might not participate would not in any way result in a penalty against that school.

Mrs Graham: Absolutely not.

Mr Rogers: Is it a prerequisite in a school development plan that there has to be some reference to shared education?

Mrs Graham: If a school is working in partnership with another school, there would be that expectation. That is because, as Suzanne said, in bidding for that money for the project, there is an expectation that improvement will be demonstrated through the school development plan. When any additional funding goes into schools from the Department of Education, there is a requirement that, whatever the work is, it will be integral to the school development plan. As you know, there have been situations in the past in which multiple funding streams have gone into a particular school, and that school has not been able to build that into something coherent. Whatever additional funding goes into a school, whether it is for shared education or another area, it needs to find its way into the school development plan because that is part and parcel of what that school will be doing in the coming years.

Dr Kingon: As part of the application process for the DSC programme, we would directly look for evidence that this was being built into a school's development planning process. If you are asking whether that is a statutory requirement, it is not, but it is a requirement of the individual project.

Mr Rogers: So there would be quite a wide interpretation of reasonable numbers of Catholics, Protestants and others, depending —

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): We are coming on to that, Seán, but fire away if you want to ask a question.

Mr Rogers: I wanted to tie it to school development plans, target setting and so on. You could have a situation with two rural primary schools: 80% of the children come from one community, and 20% come from the other. The ETI would look at the targets that had been set as to whether the numbers were reasonable, as opposed to another school that had 20% —

Dr Kingon: The targets would not really be on numbers. In assessing the project at the outset, we would look, on a case-by-case basis, at whether the numbers were reasonable for the community that they come from. The targets that they are setting in the school development plan are on how they increase collaboration, improve educational attainment and improve the attitudes of the children who attend the school. They would not set targets on numbers per se in their school development plan. That is done at the outset; it is all about quality. At the outset, we look at whether the numbers are broadly reflective of the community. If it is a community where there is an obvious demographic imbalance, is it broadly reflective of that? We look at everything on a case-by-case basis, and that is where the word "reasonable" comes from.

Mrs Graham: I will separate that out. The ETI is evaluating shared education projects, and it will continue to do its normal inspections. When the ETI evaluates an individual school's school development plan, it will look at it as stand-alone work. Equally, one of the key things in a school development plan is the pupil voice and the impact that pupils can have on the evaluation of a complete school development plan and the delivery of a new one. There are real opportunities there, for example, working in partnership, to look at how to access better and where our young people want to be in the future. There are opportunities that we do not yet know the answers to in terms of their impact. It is about seizing those opportunities to see what we can learn.

Mr Rogers: I want to go back to two general points that you made, Faustina. One was about mainstreaming, and the other was about the need to acquire good practice before making it mandatory. There was an acknowledgement earlier that in some schools, maybe because of their rural isolation, it is difficult to do shared education. Could you tease that out a bit more?

Mrs Graham: What I was saying in that instance was that if we include all the section 75 groups as a requirement in the Bill, then, looking at two small rural schools, we start to make it more difficult for them to participate in shared education. As I said, the minimum essential requirements were around religious belief and socio-economic disadvantage. Most schools will be able to meet that requirement, even the small rural schools. However, if you start to add everything else into the mix, at this moment in time around 20% of our small rural schools could not meet some of those requirements. If, in a sense, we set the bar so high that it becomes compliance work and has to include every one of the section 75 groups before you can have a partnership, that will start to exclude many of our small schools. We want people to partner in a straightforward way with schools where there seems to be a natural partnership that can grow, rather than having to find a partner school where you can find all those examples within it, which starts to make it difficult. The 20% figure was in regard to ethnic minorities: many of our small rural schools would not be able to meet that.

Mr Rogers: You made the reference that we should work harder on inclusion rather than exclusion. If we have two small, rural, three-teacher schools from different sides of the community, which, budget-wise, are really stretched, but, if they come together, they could become a four-teacher school and be sure in their plan that they could be in budget and could have high-quality education. Would the Department see the pluses for sharing in the efficient and effective use of resources and good-quality learning as the key bits if, for example, they still did not meet the 105 figure?

Mrs Graham: Say that again. Would we see the quality —

Mr Rogers: If two rural three-teacher schools come together — this is totally fictional — with one principal, it becomes a four-teacher school. To get the budget on line, there can be effective and efficient sharing of resources. The quality of teaching and learning is good and so on, but it still does not make the Bain 105 figure.

Dr Kingon: I think that what you are talking about is actually a stage on from shared education. Are you talking about them becoming a single school?

Mr Rogers: Yes.

Dr Kingon: Really, they would be looking at becoming a jointly managed school, and it would need to go through a statutory development proposal process once they had got to the point where they were sharing and it was so embedded that they decided that they wanted to become one school. That is a change. The two existing schools would close, and a new school would have to open. It would go through that statutory development proposal process. In looking at the development proposal, the Department takes all the sustainable schools indicators into account. It is not just a numbers game. It is never just that it has not reached the figure of 105; it is quality of education and access. That is how it would be appraised by the Minister: through the development proposal process and looking at all those, including the finances, but, above all, the quality and sustainability of the proposal.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Do you want in, Robin? We are in slight danger of going a bit wide of the subject.

Mr Rogers: Apologies, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): No, it is OK.

Mr Newton: I should not be penalised because of that.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): No. There are many other reasons why you should be penalised, but go ahead, Robin.

Mr Newton: Very quickly, you can tell me if I am wrong at this stage, Chair, but, under the relevant provider, meaning a person providing —

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Hold on a second, Robin. Again, we are trying to take this sequentially. We will come to the issue of providers in a minute.

Mr Newton: OK.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): I know that we strayed into the next section, but I want to deal with each of these issues and close off this section first of all. Obviously we will take a final decision next week, but it seems to be that, potentially, we could see an amendment drafted that would have a review and reporting mechanism tied in with the biennial report along the lines that have been suggested earlier, if members are content for that to be considered next week. OK?

Right; we will move on to the next section. Seán has touched on it, and I just want to get 100% clarification on it. On points 1.13 to 1.31 on page 23, which, again, relate to the definition, a couple of main issues came up, one of which I think Seán has raised. It is something that we may need to get 100% clarification on. It may be something that does not require an amendment, but on which we may seek assurance from the Minister in the Chamber. It is about whether the reasonable numbers are meant to be flexible and the extent to which that will look at context, in particular. One worry that has been raised with us is whether, if you had a couple of very small rural schools whose sheer actual numbers were relatively low, that would preclude them from being part of this. You would look at the context and the community context to try to judge that sympathetically.

Mrs Graham: We have already seen that in the projects that have already been approved where there is that range of context. I think that that is why we were keen to keep the range of reasonable numbers broad: so that we could look at the various permutations in the contexts in which the schools were actually operating. It is exactly as you have outlined, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Similarly, I know that you have dealt with the wider issue of the broader section 75-type issues that create so many hurdles. It is up to anybody if they want to raise it. One other issue that has been raised with us — I suppose that it is about terminology or the correct definition — is that you talk in the legislation about pupils of Protestant or Roman Catholic "religious belief". It has been suggested to us that it might be more appropriate to talk about Protestant or Catholic "community background", which may be more accurate. Why have you gone for one rather than the other? What are your views on that?

Dr Kingon: I think that it was just to avoid administrative burden. The very detailed data that we collect from schools is on the religious background of their pupils. We do not collect data on community background. We collect that; it is already there; it is in the system; and it is measured. We do not collect data on community or cultural background.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): I think that you refer to "belief" rather than "background".

Dr Kingon: Yes, "religious belief". That is what we collect. The question is about religious background of belief. I cannot remember whether it is "background" or "belief", but it is the same thing. It is about religion, not community. It does not ask about community.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): No, I understand that: the issue was whether it reflects that accurately if you talk about "belief" when you do not know whether a child —

Dr Kingon: It allows people to designate as being of no belief. It is a very detailed religious breakdown. I think that there are up to 20 categories in it.

Mrs Graham: Again, it is the pragmatic approach of looking at what it is that schools already do and the information that they already provide, rather than changing something. We want schools to focus on the actual learning.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): OK. Does your wording reflect precisely what you capture?

Mrs Graham: The data that we collect.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): OK. Does anybody want to raise anything on that issue?

Mrs Overend: It is not any further; I am just not really satisfied with that. I am just thinking back to what I filled in. I think that "religious background" is probably more likely. Can you check what the wording is? It is just that when you put that doubt in your mind —

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): I think that there is no objection if it is completely compatible, but I think that there might be a little scepticism.

Mr Hazzard: Does the data show that fewer people affiliate themselves to a religious background?

Dr Kingon: We would have to check that for you with regard to the overall numbers. We can come back to you on that.

Mr Hazzard: I think that general societal trends suggest that to be the case. If that is the case, perhaps "community background" is a more accurate reflection of the situation. We are becoming a more liberalised society, so increasingly people will say that they have no religious background. It would be hard to define —

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): I appreciate that there is a bit of scepticism. Can you get us something very definitive on what you collate for next week?

Dr Kingon: Absolutely.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): We will consider that with regard to amendments. On balance, I think the "background" stuff, to be honest, reflects more accurately what is there. I appreciate that if the collection of data is done on a different basis, we do not want to create an administrative burden.

Does anybody have any other issues in relation to this? I suppose that, informally, depending on what response we get back on the background issue, it may be something that we would consider. Beyond that, is everybody else happy on the other aspects? Are we happy on the reasonable numbers?

We move on to the next section — 1.32 to 1.35. Issues have been raised about the question of why the Department did not refer to integrated education as being at the upper end of the sharing continuum. Do you want to comment on that?

Dr Kingon: The 1989 Order sets out the governance arrangements for grant-maintained and controlled schools in terms of integrated education and the legislative provision for integrated education. This is the legal definition with regards to that.

In relation to integrated education being at the upper end of the shared education continuum, shared education in this Bill is specifically defined as containing two or more relevant providers. You can immediately see here that there is a legal contradiction. To say that something which is defined in statute as "a single school with specific governance and management arrangements" is at the upper end of something that is defined in law as "two or more schools and providers cooperating together" is a contradiction. There would be an immense legal difficulty with that. Rather, the policy has referenced integrated schools in terms of their inclusive ethos and promotion of inclusivity as being at the upper end of the spectrum in terms of those qualities. However, in terms of that legal concept, there is a tension between the strict definition in the 1989 Order and trying to say that it is the upper end of two schools cooperating together.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Does anybody else have any comments? Are members content with what is there at present? OK.

The Committee Clerk: Just for clarification, when we come to this next week, does the Committee want to get something drafted? Members may well choose to vote it down, but in terms of including integrated education in the definition of shared education, we are only making an informal decision at this stage and could vote it away next week.

Mr Hazzard: There is a value of some sort in including it, but I think it causes so much confusion and trouble that it is maybe not worth it.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Does anybody wish for something to be drafted?

Mrs Overend: We should. We can take a look at it.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): I am guessing that it may well be that the Committee will go against it, but —

Mrs Overend: That is fair enough.

Mr Hazzard: And it may well be brought to the Floor by somebody else anyway.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Yes. OK. We will move on to the next section. This comes now to Robin’s point regarding 1.36 to 1.39 on relevant providers. To clarify on this, if we are talking about two schools, they can presumably come from different providers but yet be contained in the same sector. I appreciate there are other boxes to be ticked in relation to this.

Dr Kingon: Yes. "'Sector" is not a term that is actually defined in legislation.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): I am probably speaking shorthand in that regard.

Dr Kingon: We look at them all on a case-by-case basis. There is nothing in the legislation that would prohibit two providers from the same sector, and we would look carefully at any proposals that come from two providers in the same sector to see if they meet the statutory definition. However, there is nothing that prohibits that in the legislation.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Robin, do you want to say something?

Mr Newton: Basically that is it, Chair. I would like to add that we have not covered the DEL issue at this stage and whether a relationship can be formed with a further education college within shared education.

Dr Kingon: Absolutely. There is nothing to prohibit it in the Bill. What we would say is that we do not see a partnership between a single school and an FE college, which would normally be very much post-16. With regard to the entitlement framework, we do not see that being able to deliver the breadth of educational experience and deepening of shared education on a whole-school basis that a partnership between two schools can provide. Really, we would probably be looking at a partnership of two schools with a further education college. There is no prohibition.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Just to pick up on that point, I can understand where you are coming from in relation to that. If you had a situation with two or three schools, for instance, and then an FE college, when it comes to the definitional side of it in terms of the other boxes to be ticked, does the FE college in any way count as part of that? For example, if you are looking at the overall project in terms of the religious mix, the numbers involved and the socio-economic —

Dr Kingon: Yes. We would always view it on a case-by-case basis, but it may not be on an absolute basis. It would depend on the number of pupils registered at the FE college participating in the project, rather than a matter of doing a headcount in the FE college itself.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): I understand that, but the point I am making is maybe a separate point. If you had, for the sake of argument, a couple of small schools dealing with an FE college and it is a particular course within the college, you are looking at the profile of people involved on that course who are directly engaging. If it is not listed as one of the providers, does it potentially count towards the numbers?

Dr Kingon: I think that, if they were coming in on the partnership, they would be included in terms of the overall partnership. There would be no issue with regard to that.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): What I mean by that is, as a qualifier — OK, let us take an example. Say an FE college has a particular religious mix on that course, with a majority Catholic population, and the two schools they were dealing with were heavily and overwhelmingly Protestant. If the FE college was not listed as a provider, the overall mix in total could satisfy the requirements, but it might well be that the schools element may fall short of that. In what way would that be viewed?

Dr Kingon: It would be a factor, but the vast, vast majority of shared education projects would not be based around a single course like that. We would have to be shown a deepening over time of that mixing and that it was progressing towards a wider range of courses.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): I understand that. The point that I am driving at, to get a bit of reassurance, is that, if you have the involvement of an FE college — I appreciate that simply an FE college and one school is not sufficient; you need more than one school — will the mix from the involvement of the FE college be taken into account in the —

Dr Kingon: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): So you are saying yes. To potentially enable it to qualify —

Mrs Graham: The focus is on the young people involved, not the structures. If it is something that will develop a better, more rounded education for those young people, that is the key thing.

Mr Newton: The FE colleges are the truly integrated sector. I was a wee bit worried about the fact that there would have to be more than one school partnering with an FE college.

Dr Kingon: We would also look at it on a case-by-case basis. I was just saying that it would be difficult to envisage a scenario where, over the course of a project, a school on its own cooperating with an FE college could demonstrate that it was providing the breadth of shared education that we would expect to see. Schools normally set targets to increase the number of classes and areas of the curriculum in which they participate with the partner over the course of a project. A single school partnering with an FE college would be restricted to the upper end of the school and, presumably, to some specific subject areas. It is difficult to see how that would grow over the course of the project, but in no way are we saying that it is excluded. We are just saying that we would have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. It is difficult to see a scenario where that would fulfil the project criteria.

Mrs Graham: In practice, what we see by and large in our current provision is that an area learning community will work with the FE college. That is why, I think, it would be unlikely that we would see a single school liaising with an FE college. The more we can encourage that organic growth of an area learning community, the better. We see and envisage — indeed, I think that we already have — area learning communities putting in bids as groups. In practice, while Suzanne is talking about what might happen if we were looking at an envisaged scenario, the reality is that, across Northern Ireland at this time, all our area learning communities work with the FE colleges as an integral part. The likelihood, therefore, is that in practice this will happen. That is why we said yes to your earlier question. The focus is very much on those young people and on ensuring that the choices that they get for their education, individually and as part of a partnership, are the best for them, whether at GCSE or A level, if there is an FE college involved in the process.

Mr Newton: I would be content enough if I was assured that a partnership with an FE college would not be ruled out.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): When referring to providers, you initially listed potential providers and, at that stage, you did not mention FE colleges. If there were explicit reference in the legislation to providers, including FE colleges, would the Department be opposed to that or feel that it was unnecessary? What is your view on that?

Dr Kingon: That would really be a matter for the Minister to consider.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): I appreciate that we are putting you on the spot a bit.

Mr Rogers: I was getting worried too, but I think, Faustina, that you have clarified it. Some of our best examples of shared education are in some of our area learning communities. Not only are they for GCSE onwards but some schools use them from Key Stage 3 onwards for day release of one or two days for key skills. There is a place for that as well as pupils who are 16-plus. Some fantastic work is going on in some of the learning communities.

Mrs Graham: That is the point that I was making earlier when I said that this is an evolving process. The important thing is that we are trying to capture as much effective learning as we can in the examples that you mentioned to see how that can impact on our entire system in the longer term. I absolutely take that point.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): I have one final question just to clarify the point on reasonable numbers. On any project, are you carrying out the assessment on the basis of the reasonable numbers being those who are participating rather than those who are at the school? I appreciate what you said about FE but, leaving that out of it for the moment, in the case of a shared education project that involves two schools and particularly relates to sharing in sixth form, for example, is it based on the numbers participating, which, in that example, would be the numbers in the two sixth forms, rather than the numbers from the two schools?

Mrs Graham: I think that it is both. In looking at the projects that are already in train, and even as we move to Peace IV, no project is exclusive to one part of the school over time. If you are talking about a three-year project or a four-year project, the expectation is that there is planning for that work to widen and develop throughout each of the schools over time. If, for example, the beginning part of the project will be based on the sixth form and, in the sixth form, there is not the balance that we are looking for, although it exists across the school, then, obviously, as Suzanne said, we would look at that on a case-by-case basis, as long as we could see that, over time, the intention was to broaden that out to either Key Stage 4 or Key Stage 3. The planning of the project will be the determinant of whether something is accepted as having reasonable numbers. It will never be taken in isolation as the one factor that decides whether or not it is approved.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): As with the previous situation, the Committee may either be satisfied or may not be. Do members want any amendment drafted to make explicit reference to including further education colleges or are you happy with what you have heard? We can take members' views. Obviously, any decision would be for next week. Are you happy not to amend the Bill?

Mr Newton: Chair, I would be more comfortable if the FE colleges were referenced.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): We will at least have an amendment drafted. It may be like the early amendments. An amendment can be drafted, and we can take a decision next week on whether it may be tabled.

Mr Rogers: We are certainly content with your assurances, but I think that we would like to see FE referenced.

Mrs Graham: Clause 1(3)(b) refers to:

I think that was trying to encapsulate the breadth, particularly around early years as well.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): That is a fair enough point. We will have an amendment, and we may or may not proceed with that. I think that that concludes clause 1, you will be pleased to hear.

There are probably two main areas in relation to clause 2. We had representation from a number of bodies, and I appreciate what has been said that there is not a legal definition of sectoral bodies. One of the issues raised — it goes wider than some of the others — is that, although CCMS is directly mentioned, there is no mention of NICIE, CnaG or the controlled sectoral schools body.

Dr Kingon: That is really for the simple reason that they are not statutory bodies. CnaG, NICIE etc are companies limited by guarantee, and it was not felt appropriate to give statutory powers to non-statutory organisations.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Why?

Dr Kingon: That is the advice that we have had from our legal advisers.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): There has been a strong desire for that from both NICIE and the controlled sector. It was the transferors, rather than the controlled sector, but it effectively indicated that. To be fair, we have not heard directly from CnaG, but it would want to be given that power. We are talking about a power that can be exercised; it does not put a duty on them. Apart from not feeling that it is appropriate, is there any strong reason why they should not be given that power?

Dr Kingon: They are companies limited by guarantee, so it would be slightly strange to give them legislative powers.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Yes, but it is simply a power to do something. Have any other members thoughts on that?

Mr McCausland: It is a strange education system in Northern Ireland. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): To be fair, if we delve into the depths of strangeness, we could be here all day. Obviously, there is a difference of views on that. Again, without prejudice to the decision of the Committee, could we at least have an amendment drafted to include those bodies?

The Committee Clerk: OK.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): You dealt with another issue, to a certain extent, in your opening remarks, and that is the number of bodies. To be fair, there is a distinction in the evidence. We are now at comments 2.11 to 2.26, which the Committee will have to consider. There did not appear to be a great deal of enthusiasm to impose any duty on bodies such as CCMS or the Youth Council, but there was a considerable weight of evidence in people's submissions that, as there was a duty on the EA, the Department itself should have a duty, which would then potentially require a consequential amendment from "may" to "shall". I appreciate that, to some extent, you have covered that in your remarks, but can you talk about a duty specifically on the Department, as opposed to on any arm's-length bodies or other bodies?

Mrs Graham: It comes back to what I said in the opening remarks around that concept of the number. We are trying to be as enabling as possible through the power, so that as many educational organisations as possible can become involved and there would be that breadth of organisational involvement. With a duty, it becomes much more difficult, in view of the stringent financial climate that we are in, to accommodate all the needs of that broad spread of organisations, if there were that obligation on the Department, rather than the power to do so as it came across. There is the concept that shared education is not a sector in the way that the other two sectors that I talked about are. They are small sectors that require support to develop and to be embedded as part of the wider education sector, with regard to both integrated and Irish-medium education. This is something that involves all our schools and, potentially, our youth organisations and early years providers working together. It is geared towards the entire system. I appreciate the differences, as you said, in the sense that the Education Authority, at the moment, has a duty.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Are there any other comments from members?

Mrs Overend: I will just come in on that. One of the organisations that talked to us talked about placing a duty on the Department to encourage shared education. I appreciate what you said about keeping shared education separate, but the idea was that shared education would be an integral part of all decisions with regard to education. Shared education would be part of the thought process in making all decisions; it would be just like rural-proofing all decisions of the Government so that they think of the rural needs of Northern Ireland. In all educational decisions, they would look to see whether shared education could be brought into that decision or whether it would be impacted by it.

It was an interesting thought that it would be in the DNA of the Department and the Education Authority. Have you any thoughts on that?

Dr Kingon: It might be helpful to give a worked example of how the statutory duty operates with two existing sectors. We have 30 Irish-medium schools and 60 integrated schools, which are relatively very small numbers. We would stocktake all our existing policies and see whether a reasonable adjustment had been made in those sectors on decision-making. That works in practical ways. For example, in transport policy, you can get transport assistance to an integrated or Irish-medium school even if you live nearer to another type of school. Another example would be an integrated or Irish-medium school's application for a temporary variation being considered favourably, even if there were spare places in other sectors. It is easy to see how those reasonable adjustments to existing policies can be made for small developing sectors that, in total, have fewer than 100 schools. It is more difficult when you start to work through the practical consequences. How would you adjust the transport policy for something that potentially involves all our schools? Likewise, how would you adjust temporary variation policy for something that potentially involves all our schools?

The power gives a flexibility that, when it comes to decision-making and the major policies of the Department, will be infused throughout, but it does not create a duty to make a reasonable adjustment. It might be quite impractical and, as Faustina said, extremely costly to make reasonable adjustments in a lot of those cases. Those adjustments are reasonable for a relatively small number of schools but would not be reasonable or affordable if all our schools had to participate, never mind our early years and youth providers. The issue is the practical outworkings of that. We have seen that in how we take very seriously and use the duties that we have.

Mrs Graham: Does that address the question that you asked?

Mrs Overend: I appreciate the difficulties, so you have answered my question.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): It would be easy for someone to table an amendment but, on the issue of power or duty, are members content with what they have heard or do they want an amendment to be drafted for consideration next week? The drafting will not take too long if it is to remove "power" and put in "duty".

The Committee Clerk: Would the amendment be to place a duty on the Department but leave the rest of them as powers?

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Yes.

The Committee Clerk: OK. Presumably, it would not be about some of the other things that were suggested, such as placing a duty on the Department to encourage schools to further integrate.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): We can consider that. The other issue that was raised, in addition to the power to encourage and facilitate, was whether "promote" should be in there. Do you want to comment on that?

Mrs Graham: We have gone through that on various occasions fairly extensively. We have looked at the idea, the complementarity and the comparability of the integrated and Irish-medium sectors with the fact that they are to "encourage and facilitate". We talked to the Committee about that previously. It was interesting that one of the submissions pointed out that it may be more appropriate for the Education Authority to "promote", because they are the operational area of working and interacting with front-line services in a way that the Department does not. That was an interesting observation. Is there anything else?

Dr Kingon: A lot of it is about perception. The addition of "promote" on the Department could very much create the perception of a hierarchy: it is only "encouraging and facilitating" integrated and Irish-medium sectors but is "promoting" shared education. There was a feeling that it was more appropriate to keep them aligned in the Department of Education's approach.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): To play devil's advocate for a second time, one could say you are keeping them aligned regarding "encourage and facilitate" but you are placing the duty on one set and the power on the other, so you are not keeping them aligned.

Dr Kingon: The point is that it is more about stakeholder perception. The other issue is that the Department is not the front-line delivery body. The Department does not see a role for itself as regards promotion; it does not actively promote in that sense. That is what Faustina was alluding to when she spoke about the EA as the delivery body, which delivers face-to-face to schools.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Do members wish to make any comments on the issue of promotion? Are members content or does anyone wish to seek an amendment?

Mrs Overend: I do not know.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): We want, at least, to have one drafted so that we can consider it. There are probably a number of these that, I suspect, may well fall next week, but at least it is an option.

The Committee Clerk: The amendment will be to add "promote" to the duty on the Department.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): We will move on. The offer is there if members want to raise anything. I do not think that anyone has raised any issues around clauses 3 and 4. I will assume that members are content not to propose amendments to those clauses.

There are a few other items. The first one, to come back to the point that was made earlier, is at paragraph 5.3 in the clause-by-clause table. You addressed it earlier, along with the Department's specific amendments. Does anyone want to ask any further questions on that? I will assume that members are content with that.

The next item is covered in paragraphs 5.4 to 5.7 in the clause-by-clause table. To a certain extent, we covered these points earlier. It is about assessing the impact that would, potentially, come about under the review mechanism. It would appear that members are content, so we will move on.

Paragraphs 5.8 and 5.9 deal with the resourcing of shared education. Do members have any questions about that?

The Committee Clerk: There was a suggested amendment, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Yes. There is a suggested amendment to clause 2, which reads as follows:

Does the Department have a view on that?

Dr Kingon: Just to say that the Department and, by virtue of that, the Education Authority, already operate within the framework provided by 'Managing Public Money' as set by the Department of Finance and Personnel. They have a duty to avoid undue and unreasonable public expenditure. There is no particular legislative necessity to re-reference that. As we said earlier, all the projects are subject to expenditure appraisal, they have to be approved in the usual way and they are subject to the availability of funds. The normal procedures that apply to all allocations of public money will, obviously, apply to shared education. The Department does not feel that there is any particular need to reference that.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): OK. Are members content or do they wish to seek an amendment on this? I will assume that members are content to proceed.

We will move on to paragraphs 5.10 and 5.11 which, again, you have touched on. They relate to equality and human rights aspects of the Bill. Do you wish to make any further comments in relation to that?

Dr Kingon: If there are compelling and viable reasons to cite certain groups under human rights legislation in the circumstances, that is allowed. In this case, the reference to religious beliefs and the reasonable numbers of Protestants and Catholics is, obviously, reflective of society and the conflict here and is particular to that. As Faustina has already explained, in this case, to include and reference all the section 75 groups could end up excluding, because school partnerships could not meet that long list of requirements. It would actually have the reverse effect. In this case, we are content, and we have been advised that it is fully compliant with human rights legislation.

The other point to make is that it is a particular form and delivery of education. In a similar sense, the legislation for integrated education references the education together of Roman Catholic and Protestant young people in the same sense that Catholic education is a phenomenon in Northern Ireland. It is exactly the same. This is a particular type of education, and there are viable and justifiable reasons for the groups that are cited.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Are there any further comments?

Ms Maeve McLaughlin: I apologise if you have dealt with this — I had to step out — but it is on the policy direction being very broad. I understand that that is the context piece and, potentially, the definition being at odds with that. The correspondence indicates that there is a willingness to engage directly with an organisation like the Human Rights Commission. Is it right to say that that has not happened?

Dr Kingon: The Human Rights Commission did not respond to the public consultation, but they met officials. We indicated our willingness to receive any additional submission from them, but that has not been received. That is the position. We made further inquiries, so we have done that legwork. Because the legislation will have legal standing, we have designed it to be not prohibitive. We have designed it so that it allows as many children and young people as possible to participate in shared education, rather than having a long prescriptive list of groups that have to be present or ticked off to be present for a partnership to fulfil shared education. The policy sets out a wider framework to say, "This work is about bringing together children and young people from a wide range of diverse backgrounds". It is that difference between the legal position and the wider context set by the policy.

Ms Maeve McLaughlin: That is the Sharing Works policy.

Dr Kingon: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): If members are content not to seek any amendments to that bit, we will move on to paragraphs 5.12 to 5.14, which deal with the impact of the Bill on integrated education-related obligations. Do members have any comments?

Dr Kingon: There might have been some misunderstanding among stakeholders that the provisions of the 1989 Order, including the statutory duty to encourage and facilitate integrated education, are completely separate from this provision. This provision has no impact upon the 1989 Order and the provision that are completely self-contained in it.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Any comments, members?

Mrs Overend: I think that adds to the confusion of integrated with a capital "I" and integrated with a small "i", does it not? I suppose that it is trying to bring something into the Bill that ensures that the schools improve and advance shared education, although not necessarily towards an integrated school.

Dr Kingon: It is the only legal definition. I understand your point. In fact, we were talking about that. Moving towards an integrated with a small "i" education system is, in some senses, what shared education is about. The only legal definitions of Integrated with a capital "I" are found in very strict provisions in the 1989 Order. It is a grant-maintained integrated or controlled integrated —

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Could we have "integrated" italicised? [Laughter.]

Dr Kingon: The only "integrated" that you can refer to in legislation is integrated education as set out in the 1989 Order. The other concept does not exist in legislation.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Are members content that there is no need for amendments in this area?

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Do members wish to seek amendments on any other informal issues or issues that have not been covered? We have a potential range of amendments, some of which, I expect, we will adopt, and some of which we will not. Are members content that we are in a position to proceed with formal clause-by-scrutiny? That will be the final formal decision-making, at least for the Committee. That will begin at the Committee meeting on 16 December, if members are content. Thank you to the officials.