Mr. Nigel Frith:

I will pick up on Mr. Molloy's question on shared education and whether we regard it as good. Shared education is regarded by many as an alternative to integrated education. There is a dangerous line of thought suggesting it is easier than integrated education. Let me unpick that suggestion. For me, it really boils down to the question of quality, by which I mean the impact on the values of young people. At its worst, shared education becomes a kind of sticking plaster on a broken leg, whereby schools can tick a box and access funding allowing them to say they are providing shared education. The real question, however, is whether the delivery of what they are calling shared education is having any meaningful or lasting impact on the young people involved in it. Second, we must ask whether it is sustainable. If the pot of funding comes to an end, does everything collapse or is there something being developed that has momentum and can be continued? Quality, therefore, is about genuine contact between children from different areas of the community or across the divide. It is a question of what is actually happening to shape them to help them to prepare for a meaningful future and their roles as citizens when they are adults.

Let me give an example of a practice in my school that might perhaps serve as an instance of what I am talking about. Every year before Ash Wednesday, one of the questions asked is about how the school should approach a practice often regarded as rooted in one part of the community and deliver what is required within an integrated school. For us, the Ash Wednesday service is a service held for the entire school community, including Protestants, Catholics and others. Staff, students and even the canteen staff gather together in the hall. We invite clergy from all sides of the community to help run the service. I begin the service every year by saying we have come together on the day to explore the ways in which we are living our lives and ask ourselves whether we could be doing so better than we have been. We then reach a point in the service where both Catholic and Protestant clergy speak to the children. Without using the terms "Protestant" and "Catholic", we say, "You now have an opportunity to receive the ashes if you wish, and if you would rather not, that is your choice and you may remain in your seat." We play a PowerPoint presentation and some reflective music while the ashes are being dispensed and we invite those present to think, reflect or pray; it is entirely their choice. Those who wish to receive the ashes, queue for them in a very dignified manner and those who would rather not receive them remain in their seats. After this, we close the service. It is a beautiful, dignified occasion on which students from all parts of the community can see each other in action and deem it to be okay if their friend goes up for ashes if they do not. I always invite the clergy for a cup of tea afterwards. Approximately three years ago the Catholic priest said, "My goodness, the presence of the Holy Spirit in your school this afternoon was phenomenal." I believed that was an interesting reflection.

That is an example of what I am talking about. I refer to children who are genuinely learning to tolerate and respect one another and the differences in the various communities. Where else would they receive that experience? My challenge to those delivering a shared education project is to determine whether the quality of what they are doing will match this and, consequently, whether the funding being poured into their project is worth it. Putting it bluntly, we offer shared education under one roof from 9 a.m. until 3 p.m. and beyond every day. We see the transformation in children's values that we believe should be the aspiration of any shared education project.