Education needs a searching review
IF THE Education minister and her colleagues felt that by tendering their resignations they could get a clear vote of confidence from the States, the strategy has clearly backfired.
IF THE Education minister and her colleagues felt that by tendering their resignations they could get a clear vote of confidence from the States, the strategy has clearly backfired.
It's true that, after a full day's debate, they only just persuaded a majority of their fellow deputies to reject their resignations. But when a minister says: 'I need a clear vote of confidence – back me or sack me', then holds on to office by only 24 votes to 21, it's a useless outcome for all sides.
Those who believed new blood was needed will feel frustrated that it's business as usual. But the minister and her board must be far from feeling that they have the full confidence of the House. As a 'clear the air, draw a line under it, let's move forward' tactic, it's backfired, big time. In fact, it's led to a classic case of a lame-duck department.
What must be really confusing for the public is the whole political shenanigan of saying, 'I wish to resign but please don't accept my resignation'.
In any other facet of life, tendering your resignation is seen as a genuine statement that you want to quit. Only in the parallel universe that is the States of Deliberation can resigning mean that you really want your workmates to express how very much they want you to stay.
There must be many islanders – on all sides of the present education argument – scratching their heads in confusion.
It's true that the board was handicapped in its desire to get the clear backing of fellow deputies by the lack of any States procedure to seek a vote of confidence.
I hope it stays that way, or else we will soon end up with a plethora of nauseous and cringe-making appeals for support and endorsement.
If they feel they have done nothing wrong, they simply shouldn't resign.
If they really feel the air needs clearing, they should resign properly and then seek a fresh mandate by standing for re-election.
That is what should have happened this time. Full marks to Deputy Matt Fallaize for asking for that outcome – and for genuinely apologising for the errors the Education board has made.
Elsewhere, there was a striking lack of contrition for what was at best a massive error of judgement in refusing to release results.
In fact, the whole tone of debate was worrying. 'I really enjoy the job' is no argument for keeping it. On the contrary, done properly, a ministerial role should be anything but an unalloyed pleasure.
Good boards – whether political or commercial – are not always comfortable places to be.
The other thing that makes members of this Education Department lame ducks is that they survived only with the en-bloc support of the Policy Council. That didn't mean all ministers necessarily had full confidence in the board. Instead, they took the view that the question of resignations shouldn't even be considered until the results of the educational review they've just commissioned are known.
Talking of that review, it seems very far from satisfactory. I know nothing at all about the man retained to carry out the exercise but what worries me are the terms of reference. It's quite natural that there'll be a focus on the problems with GCSE results at some local schools. But it's concerning that the reviewer's attention seems to have been directed purposely away from the corporate centre of the Education Department. No catch-all clause saying 'and any other relevant issue' can make up for this flaw.
Why is it so important that the department itself is subject to a searching review? Well, because there have been so many issues relating to its management over the last decade that the theory that it's all down to an unfortunate set of coincidences is starting to look increasingly implausible.
The issue is not the effect on all of the individuals concerned. When a deputy director of education and an assistant director of education are suddenly lost to the service and a head teacher is unfairly dismissed, the far bigger worry is the impact on the service itself.
Likewise, when a political board member complains that he's being kept in the dark by officers, the real worry is why the civil servants would feel the need to keep their own board out of the loop.
The real danger here is that a narrowly-focused report, delivered at a time of acute election fever, will resolve very little.
I hope not – our youngsters deserve better.
