La Mare caught in crossfire as Treasury times its arguments

SO MUCH in politics, as in life, comes down to timing.

Take the La Mare de Carteret schools project.

Had it come to the States ahead of Les Beaucamps, or indeed in a time when money was easy to come by, today's stand-off between Education and Treasury and Resources would not be happening.

Or, perhaps, if Education had set out its vision for the future of secondary education and the 11-plus debate had been had, as it should have by now, T&R would not be able to adopt the position it has now taken.

Just months ago, the holders of the purse strings were concerned above all about the scale of the project and its cost.

Now, it has suddenly grasped hold of a brand new argument – that the secondary education policy should all be in place before La Mare is decided upon.

It also has a fallback position, just in case other politicians think that kids shouldn't be taught in leaky schools in which rats jump up through the floors – and that is that a decision should be made now on closing another school.

Again, timing.

It is almost a petulant reaction. Or a clever ploy to adopt a position that is so unfathomable and unsupportable in the days of evidence-based decision making – one that is already causing untold disruption – that the delaying motion becomes just that much more attractive by comparison.

The States got it wrong when it built Les Beaucamps ahead of La Mare, but there is little point agonising over that now.

Treasury also got it wrong in letting Education get so far down the road with planning for the new schools and all the associated facilities if all it was going to do was try to block everything.

Spare more than a thought, too, for those being caught in the shrapnel of this stand-off.

All the pupils and teachers at the primary school and in the autism sector suffer as Treasury argues for the bigger vision on secondary education.

Of course, it makes sense for that big picture to be in place first.

It always has done.

Except, well, there is a policy in place to which the department is working – the one agreed a decade ago when Education lost out in its plans to scrap the 11-plus and the States agreed to something of a mash-up, trying to please just about everyone with promises of new schools.

Since then, politicians have kept promising the world, giving platitudes to concerned pupils, parents and teachers that La Mare would be built.

They are still doing it now. Treasury says it agrees with Education that La Mare should be built, it's just when and how big.

Education believes in a flexible approach.

Build a new La Mare now and there is plenty of scope for rearranging the schools to make things fit later.

Deputies will be asking whether the department, having invested so much time and effort into developing the project to this stage, has lost sight of the bigger picture and become intransigent because it is so wrapped up in what it has done so far.

There is an emotional tie, too, maybe?

In times like these, politicians may well look to the Policy Council for an outside sense of perspective – some guidance from the senior team.

But there is nothing in what it has said so far that indicates that it is anything but on the fence on this one, which, given its involvement in the independent report into the project, seems rather tame.

This is a time where leadership is needed but is sorely lacking.

Education, at least, has adopted a consistent position on this, which has been so absent from Treasury.

There is a clarity in its argument that T&R can't match because it is too busy doing

flip-flops.

So will the decision on La Mare become any easier once the States has debated the 11-plus?

Or will other competing interests throw even more confusion into the debate?

It is far from certain where the States sits on the future of secondary education – indeed, you could see competing perspectives within the Education Department.

Until someone can show that ending selection and closing the Grammar School – losing its link with the Sixth Form Centre which benefits both pupils and teachers – will improve outcomes for all, any move to do so will split opinion.

If the States does move to a new system, rearranging the furniture will come at a cost, both financial, in terms of time and in disrupting education.

All of it can be handled, just not as easily and quickly as some might like to think.

There are those who want to see all post-16 education brought under one organisation, although putting it all under one roof might not be so easy – a campus approach is possible.

Facilities would need to change and costs added up and all of a sudden it might be that La Mare has to take another back seat.

Or it straddles an election and, just like the incinerator, it is such an expensive project that the

new intake just can't help but revisit it.

The vote on the future of secondary education is unlikely to be decisive with a strong majority, which, as has been seen with the transport strategy, can make subsequent moves associated with it more vulnerable.

Maybe it is this future that Education fears – a shifting landscape of uncertainty.