Education must have more faith in its own plans

Politically, it is dead.

No Assembly would vote it back into existence. Education itself says that only a ‘small number’ of deputies are keen to keep the concept in the mix.

And while Education members have consistently overplayed the notion that October’s election should be interpreted as some kind of referendum on the two-school model, it is hard to deny that much of the green-ribboned public and teaching staff remain deeply hostile to the rejected plan.

The idea is so dead that even if the old Education committee were somehow returned to their posts they would not try to resurrect it.

So how is it that Education fears that the mere use of two-schools as a comparator risks bringing it back ‘front and centre’ to the debate?

‘Much-maligned’ though it might be (Education’s words) the two-school system cannot drag the new committee backwards or anywhere else. It goes where it wants.

So if the committee, the public and the Assembly are aligned in antipathy to two schools what is the problem with seeing the review in full and then using it as one of the benchmarks?

As amendment proposer Deputy Tina Bury says, if nothing else that information allows deputies to understand better the relative strengths and compromises of each option. What trade-offs are being made in terms of staff costs, building size, curriculum breadth and teacher satisfaction etc?

By fighting so hard to cast two schools into oblivion Education comes across as unsure of its ground.

If its three-school solution (comprised of four schools) is manifestly best for the island then it should have more faith that it will win the day.

The answer is more transparency, not less. Put all the information out there, including all the terms of reference, and the Assembly will surely reach the same conclusion.

Refusing to do so merely makes it look as if the committee has something to hide from teachers, pupils, parents – and the States Assembly.