The rule of manure

THE 1890s were undoubtedly the years for experts on horse manure in cities.

The meteoric growth of great cities such as New York and London in the 19th century was literally powered on the streets by horses. At their peak, more than 50,000 horses were in use just to move people around in cabs and buses.

To us that might sound delightfully quaint and far better than the fossil fuel-polluted streets of today. We imagine the possibility of the occasional whoopsie in Regent Street, which would be eagerly sought out for use on the roses.

Far from it. A horse deposits about 30lbs of manure a day and passes about 2pts of urine. Working horses didn't have long lives and dead ones were frequently abandoned on the streets, gently decomposing until they could be dismembered and removed.

Horses were the great crisis facing cities and horse manure its most visible sign. In 1894 an expert calculated for The Times that at the current rate of growth, which no one could see slowing down, within 50 years the main streets of London would be buried under 9ft of manure. His research was evidence-based and his mathematical projection impeccable.

In 1898, the topic was hotly debated at the first Urban Planning conference, with some experts predicting the end for major urban development.

A raft of regulations and civic projects were recommended by specialists.

If, in 1894, a Mr Daimler had suggested the answer was to invest in the motor car, how would he have been able to support his position without evidence?

Detractors would have been able to roll out dozens of horse manurists with reams of evidence, mathematical calculations and photographs and he would have been dismissed with a flea in his ear.

Sometimes, evidence-based research isn't the best way to approach an old problem to deliver something amazing and new. Sometimes, the experts are just wrong because their expertise is of the past not the future.

Did planning experts anticipate the impact of online shopping before online existed? On the cusp of the online explosion, was there an expert architect designing a high street remodelling to capture the increased footfall all the evidence-based projections predicated?

In my own working life I've seen so many evidence-based investment decisions made by renowned experts in the sector fail to deliver the suggested returns.

Conversely, I've seen newbies with revolutionary models and amazing non-verifiable projections make great returns.

As in all things in life I've also seen the opposite, where visionaries tanked and experts raked the money in.

All of the above has been brought to mind by the continuing tragedy of the Education debate.

I've long used the horse manure expert as a reminder that experts are often wrong and are frequently not visionaries. I've also used it to remind me that evidence-based argument works in a court of law examining something that happened in the past but isn't always needed for building the future.

As a consequence, I support retaining the current Education, Sport & Culture team and letting them get on with the job of suggesting the shape of our new secondary education system. I say the shape, because I have no doubt that even if they produce a Utopian system of education, our broken system of government will let it be redesigned on the back of a fag packet before being finally approved.

I support them not because of any exceptional skills or leadership qualities, but because as a team of four chosen from a random intake of 38 deputies they are as capable as any other team to be drawn from such a small pool of talent.

My main reason to support them is that they are not idealistic zealots on a mission. At least one other committee could be seen as more pragmatic and gain more public support if its president wasn't quite so focussed in his views. I leave you to speculate who that may be.

My personal fear is that removing Deputy Le Pelley and his team will increase the chance of this once-in-a-generation opportunity to create something that works for Guernsey being replaced by an ideologically pure system more politically biased than a pragmatic system best for all.

More than 30% of our children are educated in what are referred to as private schools, but which are in the main so entwined with the States of Guernsey and our community they bear no resemblance to, say, Eton or Harrow.

A goodly proportion of each cohort will have a leaning towards the more technical or practical rather than the purely academic. I'm hoping for a system that encompasses the entire cohort and uses our full inventory of educational assets.

I'm hoping for a plan that reduces the States of Guernsey involvement in Education to setting a minimum standard, responsibility for oversight, providing the funding and providing some infrastructure.

I'm hoping for a plan that includes the colleges, high schools and the College of Further Education.

I'm hoping for a plan where heads run their schools and schools compete for learners.

I'm hoping for a lot.

I believe Deputy Le Pelley and his team are more likely to produce something that doesn't ignore the practically minded, doesn't ignore the 30% in the colleges and doesn't ignore our financial realities. He gives me some hope.

Of course, I've no evidence to back this up and I can't claim to be an educational expert.