Late for the bell

WE ARE all being asked for our views over the future of secondary and tertiary education in Guernsey.

The review is certainly needed, but the timing could hardly have been much worse. The final proposals are due to be debated by the States in March. In other words, at the final meeting of the current assembly.

Why is that such a bad thing? I think there are several reasons.

My first concern reflects my cynicism over what motivates some, but by no means all, of our deputies. I suspect that come March the main focus for many of those seeking re-election will be which stance will lose them the fewest votes. I deliberately put it that way round rather than saying 'which stance is likely to gain them most votes' for a good reason.

My experience tells me that on highly emotive issues such as this one the number of people saying 'I like the way he spoke and voted on this one so I'll definitely vote for him in future' is dwarfed by those getting hot under the collar and declaring, 'I'm furious that he voted that way, I'll never vote for him again'.

Either way, determining how to vote according to the likely impact on their electoral prospects is hardly a good substitute for a genuine appraisal of what the deputies themselves think is in the best interest of Guernsey schoolchildren. The future prospects of a generation or more of island youngsters has to be far more important than the livelihoods of a dozen or so career politicians.

Perhaps I am being overly cynical? Perhaps they will all put the educational imperatives before their own prospects? But I'm not convinced.

My second concern is that holding such a seminal debate on the eve of the election will turn it into almost the sole election issue, drowning out all the other important subjects that candidates should be quizzed on. I know this may not be entirely logical, as the matter would already have been voted on and decided, but it will happen anyway.

Whenever a huge, divisive issue is determined by the States the public post mortem examination of that debate carries on for months. That was true of such diverse issues as legalising abortion and bringing in the zero-10 tax regime. It will be equally true of the decisions on the future of secondary and tertiary education, whatever the outcome. So if the States vote on the matter in March it's bound to dominate an April election.

Is this such a bad thing?

Isn't it better to have passionate debate over big, meaningful issues at election time rather than obsessing over dog-dirt and minor traffic issues? In some ways yes, but there are two problems here.

The first, as I said, is that a totally dominant issue drowns out all others. The second is that in the aftermath of a highly charged debate there will be lots of angry people around until emotions have had time to settle down. So there's a real danger that some may vote for candidates almost solely on their stance over education rather than on a more rounded assessment of their ability and their policies. If so, we could get some real chumps elected as part of that backlash. Oh heck! I started off being cynical about politicians and now I've extended that cynicism to the electorate.

My last concern over the timing is that it will almost certainly ensure that the March debate is anything but decisive.

The 'losing side' will pledge to overturn anything short of a really decisive vote in the new Assembly. Experience tells us that public and political opinions are likely to be split on this topic, so the chances of any vision for the future gaining anything like two-thirds support are slim. Cue promises to 'overturn this dreadful decision if it's the last thing I do'.

I suppose that's democracy, but given that the current States has been characterised by taking major, controversial decisions and then overturning them (in one case the next day) it's hardly ideal. And what about the schools, the pupils, the teachers, the parents? In March they may have an apparently definitive decision that will change (or not) their lives. But instead of being able to dust themselves down, adjust to the new realities and get on with life there will be months of limbo while everybody wonders if the 'new lot' will stick by their predecessors' decisions.

So, rotten timing. But what's the alternative?

There really isn't one starting from here. Decisions on the future of secondary and tertiary education are overdue and really should have been taken earlier on in the Education Department's capital programme. Putting the debate back a few months isn't an option.

A brand new Education Department and a brand new States would need a year or two to come up to speed on the important issues involved.

Of course what really should have happened is that the current Education board should have brought these matters forward mid-way through the current political term. Any time from one year in to three years in would have been dandy. Even six months before the election would have been just about OK.

They didn't, so they are having to play catch-up. As a result, a vital debate is going to have to happen when most deputies' thoughts will be focused on their election campaigns.

It definitely has to go ahead, but to describe the timing as 'poor' would be litotes.