Searching for meaning

BEFORE my main topic, a thought: there are two ways of getting down a cliff face.

The first is to carefully climb down, coming to each obstacle and not proceeding until each has been overcome. Slow, but you get down safely.

The second is to jump from the top, bypassing any obstacles, and not worry about solving any problems until you hit the ground – they can be sorted afterwards. Any broken bones will soon heal.

It seems to me that Education is almost always responding to problems by suggesting they can be sorted out during the transition phase; surely this way of implementing the two-school model is more akin to the ‘jump off the top’ approach than the careful approach.

Is that really the most sensible strategy for a government?

In my column of 13 February I explored some of the political options open to Education; the type of amendment they might lay, as well as the possibility of the Policy & Resources Committee placing an amendment.

Published on the States website are a number of amendments, including one from Education and one from P&R. Both worth considering.

Firstly, Education’s amendment.

It removes all of the requete, replacing it with nine propositions and sub-propositions. Seven are ‘to note’, which means the States are being asked to neither approve nor reject those seven items, so they have no effect on anything. The two which actually do anything are equally pointless.

One of the two is to direct Education to have improved consultation with people. Do they really need the States to tell them that?

The second is for Education to submit a policy letter to the States outlining whether more space is needed. Something they can do without a States instruction.

If it does nothing, why place it? Because it gives deputies the opportunity of seeming to be doing something positive – they are putting something in place of the requete rather than just rejecting it – even if what they put in place is meaningless.

Now the P&R amendment.

In a previous column I suggested P&R could justify an amendment on the grounds of showing leadership – and that is just what they say. I wish I could predict the lottery numbers so well!

They have created a very clever amendment, very subtle. It replaces all of the requete with their own propositions, which do very little.

The first two propositions are fairly bland – reaffirming that we want good quality education.

Proposition three is a different matter. It starts off fine: instructing Education to produce a report comparing the best value three-school options. OK so far.

But it says the report will be part of Education’s business case submission – note this point, it becomes important later.

The proposition then goes on to specifically exclude rebuilding La Mare. Why exclude La Mare when the objective is to find the best option? The narrative from P&R with the amendment provides no reasoning for this. All very strange.

Excluding La Mare means the only three realistic locations available are St Sampson’s High, Les Beaucamps and Les Varendes, so those have to be the three sites.

The proposition has one further element: ‘… the comparison should include one site with a co-located sixth form centre’.

With only three locations, and only one site having to have a sixth form, it becomes pretty obvious where the sixth form can be – the only realistic option is Les Varendes, where it is now.

So why the roundabout way of effectively limiting the comparison to one option? And why limit it, if the object is to find the best solution? Your guess is as good as mine.

Now we come to the really important proposition – five. It starts to reaffirm the capital cost for secondary education at a maximum of £77.9m.

So far not a problem, but the proposition has another, second part, which is to affirm that P&R have sole authority to approve the business case from Education to allow the money to be released.

Since the two elements are in the same proposition they cannot be voted on separately – so if deputies want to confirm the amount to spend, they have no option but to give P&R sole authority to make the decisions.

Agreeing the spending limit to be £77.9m. and confirming P&R’s absolute authority to release the money on the approval of a business case may seem OK.

But remember the earlier proposition that Education have to submit the report comparing the two-school and three-school models ‘within the full business case’.

The effect of these two propositions together is that Education are instructed to produce a comparison report as part of their business case which they then have to present to P&R, and it is P&R alone which makes the decision.

Nothing returns to the Assembly.

Compare that to the current situation: Education produce a business case and submit it to P&R for it alone to make the decision.

Very little difference.

Approving the P&R amendment will mean very little change to the current position.

Yes, Education have to produce a report comparing the two-school model with the three-school model but, importantly, they do that as part of their report to P&R. A report which need not be made public, and which will not involve consultation or debate with teachers, the public or other deputies.

It will be a ‘behind closed doors’ decision by only five deputies.

I obviously cannot pre-judge matters, but given Education’s current commitment to a two-school model I think it very unlikely that they will produce a report recommending a three-school model. And considering only one member of P&R voted against the two-school model, just how likely are they to oppose Education’s recommendation?

This issue effectively decides the model of education for the next 50 years, for which there is huge public concern. One strength of the requete is that any report Education has to produce is then reviewed by the next Education committee, unencumbered by political baggage, and decided upon by the next Assembly, also unencumbered by political baggage.

This is a very clever amendment since it seems to give deputies the opportunity to vote for something positive, reaffirming earlier decisions, but the reality is that things continue as they are, there is no pause and the same people make the decision in virtually the same way as now.

Is this just a creative way to support an unpopular committee without being seen to support them?

Not only do I expect Education to embrace this amendment, I expect them to give Deputy St Pier a huge hug!