Guernsey Press

Education’s appointment of consultants linked with two school plan ‘raises questions’

PAUSE and review requete signatories have reacted with surprise, and in some cases disappointment, at the appointment of Education’s independent advisers for the secondary school review.

Published
Deputy Andrea Dudley-Owen. (Picture by Adrian Miller, 28639367)

This was in the main directed at Peter Marsh Consulting, a consultant Education, Sport & Culture employed previously as it worked up its two-school plans, as the independent specialist in education.

Former chief minister Peter Harwood, who is currently a member of Scrutiny Management as the ‘independent overseer’ and Phil Eyre, founder of Leaders Consultancy and managing director of The Learning Company as the ‘independent facilitator’ were also selected.

Deputy Andrea Dudley-Owen, who led the pause and review requete, remained cautious of those selected.

‘I am satisfied that ex-deputy and chief minister, advocate Harwood as independent overseer together with Phil Eyre as an independent facilitator are sensible appointments,’ she said.

‘Both have proven records and shown themselves to be people of balance and integrity.

‘The appointment of a firm of consultants which has been closely associated with the one school on two sites model will, however, undoubtedly raise questions about the level of independence that can be applied to any review.’

The firm also still currently lists the States of Guernsey as one of its clients and partners on its website, in relation to its work with ESC.

It led requete signatory Deputy Carl Meerveld to question how the appointments could be considered to be independent and impartial.

‘I am disappointed to see some of the same names appearing as Education’s independent advisers for the secondary school review as contributed to their one school on two sites proposal,’ he said.

‘They will naturally not contradict the advice they previously gave with regard to the previous proposals.

‘If this is to be a truly independent review then none of the contributors to the previous proposal should be included in this group of advisors to allow for a new and truly independent perspective. To me this smacks of a further attempt by the current committee to protect their position and defend their previous manifestly impractical and unpopular proposals.’

Deputy John Gollop went further.

He said that although he was confident that all three of the appointees for the positions had the integrity, professionalism and capabilities to do the tasks, he remained dissatisfied with the corporate governance aspects of the appointments.

In addition, he also questioned whether they would be overturned following the election of new States members.

‘No States of Guernsey Assembly vote has occurred or will occur therefore the board has not got a complete democratic mandate to make these crucial appointments,’ he said.

‘[I would say that] Advocate Harwood is a former member committee colleague of some ESC members and the chief minister who nominated Deputy Sillars as the education president who demanded the end to selection but favoured four schools.

‘In addition, Phil Ayre is renowned as a leadership trainer who has networked with States members some of whom have sat on education, and Mr Marsh had been intricately advising the current committee.

‘I consider these appointments potentially ultra vires [acting or done beyond one’s legal power or authority] and may be quickly terminated by an incoming elected States and new board.’

Deputy Rob Prow added that it was his belief that it was absolutely essential that the review had independent oversight, but only time would tell whether it had been achieved.

‘Whilst the three persons named are undoubtedly of a high calibre, at the end of the review process the proof of the pudding will be in the eating,’ he said.

‘I have to say that I am surprised by the choice of one of those providing advice to ESC, as I understand their organisation has been previously involved and contracted by them, specifically with regard to the one school on two sites space requirement modelling. I hope that any perception of bias can be mitigated.’

The review, which is split into five phases, should currently be in phase three, a shortlist evaluation, before moving to phase four, a shortlist consultation, and phase five, a policy letter production.

The review is due to be completed by December.