A solution that satisfies no one

WITH the publication of the policy letter on 28 May, we now know the ESC committee’s vision for secondary education in the Bailiwick (well, 75% of the committee’s vision, as I’ll come to later).

In keeping with the now familiar modus operandi of Deputy Dudley-Owen, the policy letter is long on ambition and dreams but short on detail and information – once more the general theme of ‘trust us’ comes through loud and clear. The question now is can the ESC committee successfully navigate the court of public opinion and the scrutiny of the teachers before convincing 21 deputies to vote ‘pour’ in the middle of July?

Here are some of the issues which could influence the outcome...

The public is tired

One thing ESC very much has in its corner is that everyone involved is tired of talking about secondary education and wants – even needs – resolution. It is no good for anyone that this has gone on... and on, let alone the pupils who are the silent constituency at the centre.

Of course Deputy Dudley-Owen and her team don’t need to even make the point and they are wise to focus on the positive change (which they believe the plan to be) rather than acknowledging a compromise.

Whether a wary States will give the plan the benefit of the doubt is unclear and those against will bring out the line of ‘a bad plan is worse than taking it back to the drawing board’ but the fact remains that certainty, and all that it offers, will be attractive for all concerned.

The Cameron factor

Taking the desire for certainty on board, it is intriguing that Deputy Cameron opted to publicly disagree with ESC – even more intriguing was his reasoning which, at its most basic, revolved around money. In his statement, Deputy Cameron confirmed he’d done a cost/benefit analysis and what was being proposed just didn’t cut it.

This intervention caught everyone by surprise (not least, it appeared from the outside at least, ESC itself). But it is important for a number of reasons.

First, no States likes to see its committees disagreeing in public, especially on important issues. Deputy Dudley-Owen has asked to be trusted on education reform on a number of occasions but it must be asked what Deputy Cameron knows which we don’t (and maybe didn’t include in his statement). Are there other reasons the trust is misplaced?

Second, Deputy Cameron has placed front and centre the idea that, maybe, this new secondary education proposal might actually be an indulgence. This is problematic because a significant portion of this States were elected on a platform of frugality. If the public consider that ESC’s proposed reform is wasteful and inefficient, it makes it hard for the likes of the Guernsey Party and their sympathisers to come out in support (even if one of their number is on the ESC). Ultimately, no one wants to be accused at the next election of voting for a costly white elephant.

The grand coalition

One way of looking at the vote on the policy letter is to reconsider the voting pattern of the defeated Bury-Gabriel amendment to see who might change sides.

The particularly interesting thing about that vote was that it represented the first time the ‘van party’ and the Guernsey Party had voted as a bloc but, at that point, the vote was less about money and more about principle. Now there’s some hard cash on the line, might we see some deputies change?

Moreover, since the policy letter, some deputies have already been highly critical of ESC’s proposals (for example, deputies Leadbeater and de Lisle openly disagreeing with the closure of La Mare) and then, of course, you have Deputy Cameron himself, who might take some of the wavering deputies with him.

All of this – and there may be more to come before the vote – calls into question whether Deputy Dudley-Owen can hold the grand coalition of the Bury-Gabriel amendment vote together. She clearly played a canny hand the first time round, but it appears to be more challenging this time.

The teachers and the downside of not being transparent

As I outlined in my previous article, which was broadly critical of the Bury-Gabriel amendment defeat, it seemed clear that not being transparent wasn’t going to help anybody. And, to a large extent, this has proven true.

The teachers have long been the kingmakers of the education debate and their being against the ‘one school, two sites’ model was critical to its defeat.

Now, one can’t help but feel a sense of deja-vu.

The teachers just want information about ESC’s intentions. But the information isn’t there.

Why is the information not there? Only ESC really knows the answer to that question.

One can’t help but ask why they wouldn’t be open if they didn’t have anything to hide and, even more galling, Deputy Dudley-Owen has now confirmed that we will find out about the famous review... in six months’ time, long after the vote.

For the teachers, it would seem that this is very much a case of horses, bolted and gate and they have not, as always, been shy in expressing that view.

We know the deputies historically listen to the teachers and the teachers are now raising concerns that aren’t being addressed. It would seem this situation could have been avoided but it has not been. Therefore, we must ask the question: is this States going to be the first to break with the teaching community?

The vote

So what does this all mean?

It’s going to be a very close vote (as it always seems to be). ESC’s proposal would seem to be a little betwixt and between – it doesn’t satisfy the thrifty, it doesn’t satisfy the educationalists (who all along point to evidence that favours schools with 11-18 capability), it doesn’t satisfy the teachers and those with an open but enquiring mind. But it remains a solution of sorts and it certainly does consign selection and the Grammar School to history once and for all.

Fundamentally, the States now needs to decide whether it supports a proposal that doesn’t really satisfy anyone on the basis that approving that proposal will, nevertheless, bring this chapter of Guernsey politics to a close – it might just prove too tempting to be part of the States wot done it.