Concerns over accuracy of department-led survey on integrated education in NI
The Belfast Telegraph also understands there are further concerns about how the findings have been presented after authors claimed almost 25% of parents have expressed a preference for their child 'not to attend an integrated school',
Meanwhile, it found 32.9% of parents said they had expressed a first preference for an integrated school, with 67.1% saying they hadn't.
The survey reported that quality of education was the most important (32.5%) factor considered when selecting an integrated school as first preference.
Quality of education was again the most important (39.6%) factor considered when selecting a non-Integrated school as first preference.
Almost a quarter of parents (24.0%) said they would rather their child was not educated in an Integrated school compared with 31.2% who preferred sending their child to an integrated school.
Of those who selected an integrated school as first preference, 85.3% stated that it was either important or very important that their child received their education in an integrated environment.
The Department said the survey was conducted specifically to asses the views of parents towards integrated education.
But it comes after Education Minister Paul Givan rejected a bid by Northern Ireland's largest school, Bangor Academy and Sixth Form College, to transform to integrated status earlier this year, despite a parental vote in favour of the move.
Though the Department's Parental School Admission Survey 2025 has been released as a stand alone document, it is expected to feed in to a more general survey due for release in December this year which will also incorporate other data collected by both The Life and Times Survey 2024 and a Lucid Talk poll conducted by the Integrated Education Fund.
The Lucid Talk poll found that 65% of parents felt integrated education should be the standard model for the school system in Northern Ireland while the Life and Times survey found that 55% of parents would prefer for their child to be educated in an integrated school.
Though the latest Department of Education survey found that, 32.9% of parents said they had expressed an integrated school as the first choice for their child, currently only around 8% of pupils attend a school with integrated status.
Proximity to home was the second most important factor in which school parents opted for, behind quality of education, though campaigners have pointed out that there remains a limited choice of integrated schools in many areas of NI.
Those who selected a non-integrated school were also asked if they would want their choice to transform to become an integrated school.
In response, 37.5% said they 'don't mind', while 37% responded 'no' and 16.9% said 'yes'.
The remainder said they did not know or would prefer not to say.
Almost eight out of 10 parents (78.4%) said they had considered a school's admissions policy before deciding on a first preference selection for their child.
Two thirds (66.4%) of parents made their school selections because their child met the admissions criteria well, though over a fifth (22.6%) of parents stated that the admissions criteria made no difference to their selection.
The funeral of Jaidyn Rice takes places in Bangor
Another potential issue is a lack of transparency over who responded to the survey, with the report noting that: 'policy officials responsible for drafting the Integrated Education Strategy contacted sectoral bodies asking them to encourage parents in their school sector to complete the survey and shared the link to the survey with them.
This means it is possible that parents who did not go through the admissions process in 2025 may have completed the survey if they chose to access it though the survey link.
This is considered unlikely, but it is not possible to determine the extent to 'which this may have occurred because the survey was anonymous.'
The department said the survey was issued by the Education Authority to 63,349 parents whose children were going through the school admission process to meet the requirements of the Integrated Education Act and to measure demand.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Ex-DOJ employees sue Bondi for wrongful termination
July 25 (Reuters) - Three former Justice Department employees, including a lawyer who prosecuted people involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, have filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against the Trump administration. Plaintiffs Michael Gordon, Patricia Hartman and Joseph Tirrell said their respective terminations by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi violated federal civil service protections. They were each handed a one-page memo between late June and early July informing them of their firing. "No cause, let alone a proper merit-based one, or required due process was provided to Plaintiffs with respect to their termination and removal," the plaintiffs said in their lawsuit, opens new tab, filed Thursday in D.C. federal court. Bondi, the Justice Department and the Executive Office of the President were named as defendants in the lawsuit. A spokesperson for the Justice Department declined to comment. A spokesperson for the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The three plaintiffs are represented by a group of lawyers, including Abbe Lowell, a former Winston & Strawn partner who earlier this year launched his own firm, Mark Zaid and Bradley Moss of Mark S. Zaid P.C., and Norman Eisen of Democracy Defenders Fund. "The DOJ employees at the center of this case served with distinction, followed the law, not politics, and were fired for it," Lowell said in a statement. The Justice Department since January has been dismissing employees who worked on matters involving Trump or his supporters, citing Trump's executive powers under the U.S. Constitution. Gordon was an assistant U.S. attorney who worked in the Middle District of Florida; from November 2021 to December 2023, he was the senior trial counsel to the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office's Capitol Siege Section. Hartman was a supervisory public affairs specialist working out of the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office when she was terminated. The lawsuit said Hartman was "the primary official handling public affairs work specific to the government's prosecution" of Jan. 6 cases. Tirrell was the director of DOJ's departmental ethics office.
BBC News
a day ago
- BBC News
Justice department official expected to speak to Epstein accomplice Maxwell
Jeffrey Epstein's long-time associate Ghislaine Maxwell is meeting justice department officials as pressure grows to release files linked to the financier's sex trafficking network, US media comes after Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said he planned to speak to Maxwell about any information she had on other people whom Epstein may have helped sexually abuse girls. Maxwell is being interviewed on Thursday at the US attorney's office in Tallahassee, Florida, where she is serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking, ABC News lawyer told the BBC that Maxwell was looking "forward to her meeting", which could help determine whether she will testify before Congress. The latest developments come as interest has switched back to Ghislaine Maxwell, a convicted sex-trafficker in prison for helping Epstein abuse young have grown from the public - including President Donald Trump's loyal supporters - and lawmakers for the justice department to release files related to the Epstein case. "If Ghislaine Maxwell has information about anyone who has committed crimes against victims, the FBI and the DOJ will hear what she has to say," Blanche wrote in a post on X earlier this week. On Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi informed Trump during a May briefing that his name appeared in DOJ documents related to the Epstein case. The White House has pushed back dismissing the story as "fake news". Being named in the documents is not evidence of any criminal activity, nor has Trump ever been accused of wrongdoing in connection with the Epstein campaigning for the presidency last year, Trump had promised to release such files about the well-connected sex his supporters have since grown frustrated with the administration's handling of the issue, including its failure to deliver a rumoured "client list" of Epstein. In a memo earlier this month, the justice department and FBI said there was no such died in a New York prison cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges, following an earlier conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor. His death was ruled a suicide. In the years since, conspiracy theories about the nature of his crimes and his death itself have proliferated. On Wednesday, a sub-committee of the US House of Representatives voted to subpoena the justice department for the files, which must be signed off by the committee chairman. Republicans on the House Oversight Committee have also subpoenaed Maxwell to testify before the panel remotely from prison on 11 August. House Speaker Mike Johnson has warned that Maxwell - who for years helped Epstein groom and sexually abuse girls - cannot be trusted to provide accurate attorney, David Oscar Markus, told the BBC the concerns were "unfounded" and that if she chooses to testify, rather than invoke her constitutional right to remain silent, "she would testify truthfully, as she always has said she would".Last week, the justice department asked a federal judge to release years-old grand jury testimony related to a 2006 Florida investigation into Epstein, but a federal judge in the state on Wednesday declined to make the documents public.
BreakingNews.ie
a day ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Companies have right to strike balance on remote working, McEntee says
Companies have the right to strike a balance on remote working based on their business, Minister for Education Helen McEntee has said. It comes as several companies and State departments shift away from the remote working arrangements introduced in the aftermath of the pandemic. Advertisement The option to work from home came into force during the Covid-19 pandemic due to restrictions to prevent the spread of the virus. A right to request remote working came into effect from March 2024, inspired by those arrangements. Mandated 'hybrid' arrangements by employers have raised concerns, where people are able to work from home some days but must come into the office a minimum number of days a week. Earlier this year, the Department of Social Protection made efforts to increase the minimum number of days staff worked from the office from one to two. Advertisement The Department of Finance had also requested an increase in the number of office days, in a move that was resisted by unions. This week, reports emerged that AIB is to reduce the option of working from home five days a week to just two for non-customer facing staff. Asked about the shift in the option to remote work and the effect it would have on families, Ms McEntee said companies 'have that autonomy'. 'I'll be honest, I think it's important that we provide that flexibility and that structure at a government level, but that we also have that autonomy within companies as well,' she said in Dublin. Advertisement 'For some people, it's simply not possible to work from home [with] the type of job or the career they're in. 'For others, there is that flexibility, and I know certainly some companies like to have that balance, that people are in work, they're in the office, they're getting to know their colleagues. 'There's a way in which you can work that you can't when you're at home, or you're perhaps not meeting people face to face. Business Legislation in employers' favour but 'claims of de... Read More 'So I think it's about providing that structure to allow that kind of flexibility. Advertisement 'But ultimately, companies do have to make decisions based on what's right for them, what's right for the way in which they're working, while at the same time trying to support and recognise and acknowledge that people have families, that they have school, that they have commitments, that they have to try and work with them to make sure that everybody benefits from it. 'But you know, it is about that flexibility and the same time acknowledging, for some people it works better than others, and for some companies that will work better than for others.'
