Challenge to States school closures gathers momentum... by Nick Mann

TREES, lamp posts, car aerials – blue ribbons are beginning to cover the island as the campaign to save St Andrew's Primary School and St Sampson's Infants gathers momentum.

This States will be under public pressure which it would not have experienced so far this term, and arguably more so than its predecessors.

Long gone are the days when a senior committee would propose such a major change with a deferent population nodding solemnly in agreement.

People are now rightly much more willing to challenge the States and examine the propositions – especially when the decision at hand touches on so many lives.

There are clearly some skilled operators at hand when it comes to the closures' campaign.

They are using all the tools at their disposal to get their argument across.

Social media is playing a key role in both spreading the word and uniting people behind a common cause.

Head on to YouTube and there is a video of pupils telling us all why Education are wrong – for primary age they seem to have very strong views.

There is the 'No' campaign on Twitter, a Facebook group, an online petition.

And that is just the public face.

Deputies' email inboxes and telephones are no doubt being targeted.

Like the incinerator debate before it, those who are campaigning against are getting ever more sophisticated.

I'm half-expecting to turn up to the debate to a public gallery packed with school kids in tears.

There is obviously a fair amount of political support for the anti-closure campaign.

Last term when Education attempted to close St Sampson's Infants it gave all deputies an effective get-out-of-jail-free card with its muddled decision-making in wanting to keep St Andrew's open.

It has come up with a much cleaner and more rounded argument this time around which campaigners are trying to pick apart with some familiar tactics.

There is a strong narrative building, trying to discredit the figures and philosophy behind the report.

Much of it is becoming tit for tat: 'You say multi-form entry gives a more rounded, better education: I say smaller schools have better results'.

'You say there will be a 500 over-capacity but we can use different class-size figures to show it is much less.'

The problem is not for those on the Education board, among them educationalists, which should carry some weight, who have lived and breathed the closure report and the reasoning behind it.

The problem is also not for the 'antis', which at the moment seem to be drawn along territorially parochial boundaries.

They have already made up their minds and none of this back and forth will sway them.

It is the middle-ground deputies, those who are trying to weigh up the pros and the cons that need to find their way through this all.

And for starters that should mean becoming dispassionate and analytical.

The basis for Education's closure proposals is really two-fold.

One comes down to the finances of it. Anyone trying to downplay this is not doing themselves any favours at all.

There is a £30m. deficit to close, the schools are expensive to run. Education needs to find large recurring savings – if not here, then where? Where will the campaigners be when there is not enough money to offer universal pre-school education?

The financials have not come under the same level of scrutiny as the second part of the argument, probably because they cannot be denied.

It's just that some do not want this to be a driving factor.

The second part of the debate is about a much more emotive and subjective area – standards and what type of school provides the best education.

Much was made during the election campaign of the need to make tough decisions.

Well, class of 2012, here we go.

Watch out for those in the relevant districts go with a seat-saving vote.

There is also another strand running through this debate.

This is the one that says there has not been enough time for those against the report to prepare their arguments.

There are six weeks. In the past that was four – which is still the case for the Budget and anyone trying to unpick that will know which is the more difficult to prepare.

There should be few who have followed this issue with any kind of regularity that would have been surprised with the proposals on the table from Education.

Any further delay is unsettling for all involved, but is also a sign of muddled thinking.

Ask the political anti-camp what extra information they need and they won't tell you.

The phrase 'keeping our cards close to our chest' comes out.

And that gives you the impression it is more about tripping Education up than having a full and frank discussion. Trying to land a last-minute, knock-out punch during the debate, rather than lay it open to the same level of scrutiny that Education has done with its report.

The last time there was a large-scale presence on the steps of the States – for the incinerator debate – some deputies crumbled and changed their votes because of that public pressure.

Campaigns can and do work.

This is a less-experienced

Assembly facing its first real emotive challenge.

Perhaps they may just find time to reflect on those that are remaining silent in all this before getting persuaded by the minority shouting loudest.