P&R wants clear decision but is sitting firmly on education fence itself

IF ANYONE undecided in the education debate was looking for that guiding ray of light they will be sorely disappointed by the latest intervention by Policy & Resources.

In summary, its letter of comment says that there is no overwhelming argument in favour of either Education’s three-school model or the alternative offering.

It does suggest that the States needs to choose the most flexible approach, just not which it is.

P&R says it is difficult, if not impossible, to comment on the value for money of either proposal or make comparisons between them.

Both can make savings, both require a significant capital outlay.

Both models have challenges, both are incomplete – insightful stuff.

But despite the type of fence sitting that would leave you with some serious blister problems, P&R argues it is ‘imperative that the States make a clear and firm decision regarding the future structure of secondary and post-16 education’.

How you make a clear and firm decision without a compelling argument is an interesting conundrum and one the States will be grappling with from tomorrow.

Clear and influential leadership it ain’t.

As we enter the debate we know that there is a schism in the Assembly over this issue – there will be no thunderous victory from either camp, no clear direction, no overwhelming support.

Now in purist terms within a democracy that doesn’t matter, one vote either way is all it takes – well, usually anyway.

And we have seen narrow votes setting a course that the States has stuck with, for example with waste, but never on such a widespread change with such a large impact on society – and rarely on reports riddled with so many holes and weaknesses.

Uncertainty is permeating the community and P&R wants that to end.

The States is rushing headlong to a conclusion with a worrying feeling that some members value getting to a destination more than they value making sure it is the right one.

P&R’s intervention is a mirror of what the States debate will bring. Something that will be high on speeches that sound compelling and authoritative until you start to strip the layers back.

Even the travelling circus of educational experts being brought to the island to help inform the debate in recent weeks remains firmly uncommitted – it doesn’t take a genius to know you want what is best for the children, after all.

Try as everyone would like, you cannot take the politics and personalities out of this debate.

There are two clear camps, and the way evidence has been lined up and then undermined, to some members casting their vote is simply going to come down to who they trust the most.

Are they in the side that feels that Education’s continuing bids to amend its own policy letter are a sign of a committee willing to listen to concerns over things such as local management of schools, equal-sized schools or their post-16 model, or more of one so desperate to appease its critics it simply comes across as confused and indecisive?

Do they sit with those who feel it is unfair for four deputies to be given funding to explore an alternative, that they are running a ‘shadow committee’ with the sole intention of taking over Education?

There are no doubts that should Education lose this debate, their positions would be untenable.

Talks have taken place about who could form a new committee – this is politics, after all – and it would be short-sighted not to work through the what-if scenarios.

But should you vote for one model above another because of what happens next politically or because of what is going to lead to the best educational outcomes?

The answer is, of course, obvious.

Publicly deputies will say the right thing, privately the knives are out and people are lining up along familiar lines.

While P&R implores States members to make a clear decision, it cannot make one itself.

This is not an issue where the losing side is likely to go off quietly into the night – not just the politicians, but all those with an interest, the parents, the teachers, just about everyone has a stake and an opinion.

Remember that some still will not let the 11-plus debate die, never losing the chance to drop the, well, ‘I did not vote for it’ line.

Both camps have disappointed with their proposals, the States should not be where it is now.

A narrow vote based on incomplete reports with more questions than answers is not a recipe to take to the public afterwards and expect dutiful acceptance.

This week’s debate will not end the uncertainty, whatever the intentions or pleadings are.

It is going to be a massive challenge to see through the reforms while dealing with the fall-out whichever way the vote goes.