OPINION: A ‘sardine tin’ approach to education?

1. At its heart lies a combination of larger classes and fewer teachers as Education, Sport & Culture struggles to stay within budgetary limits while operating an inherently inefficient four-school system. Forget ‘tipping points’, ask about the real changes in pupil-teacher ratios.

2. ESC will tell you class sizes would have needed to go up even under the current model because times are hard. That’s no surprise because the current system is also a very inefficient four-school model. But there are several more efficient models out there which could have avoided this retrograde step without costing more – in fact, costing less. If two schools are somehow unacceptable, despite being able to provide better educational provision for a lower cost, then surely three schools is the obvious compromise.

3. It’s not only teachers that are going to be in shorter supply going forward. The worsening pupil-teacher ratios are nothing compared to the reduction in the space our children will be taught in. Not only will the pupils from the current four schools have to go into three but they will do so without the provision of any additional space or facilities. There will be a bit of routine maintenance at Les Varendes but that’s it. So, for example, there will be a massive increase in pupil numbers at Les Beaucamps but no extra science labs or refectory space. It really is very much a ‘sardine tin’ approach to education. Seemingly it would be wasteful to create more space because pupil numbers may go down again the future. Blimey.

4. We will have the weird situation of two post-16 institutions sitting right next to each other at Les Ozouets but operating completely separately. I could have probably supported the concept of a tertiary college [indeed I did in 2001] despite knowing that some people question their academic results. But the policy letter could not be clearer. There will be no tertiary – the Sixth Form Centre and the Guernsey Institute will be neighbours but nothing more.

5. In reality nearly all of the capital costs in this plan relate to simply moving the current Sixth Form Centre a few hundred metres north-eastwards. I can see the argument that we would have a postcode lottery for 11-18 education, at least in the state sector, if the sixth form stayed where it is. But £50m. is surely a very hefty cost just to avoid that perceived unfairness. Anyway, how can ESC logically argue that 11-18 schools don’t have any inherent advantages [I disagree with them] while at the same time saying it would be unfair to provide some pupils with 11-18 education but deny it to others? It’s a logical nonsense.

6. While I share the view of Deputy Bob Murray [who seems to be the main driving force behind these proposals] that ideally there should be no postcode lottery for access to 11-18 education, there comes a point where the consequences of that ideology become completely unacceptable. If cost was no option and we could afford both to move the Sixth Form Centre a few hundred metres to ensure equity and to invest sufficiently at Les Beaucamps and Les Varendes to allow them to cope properly with the big influx of pupils they’ll be expected to accommodate, then fine. But if money is so tight that it really comes down to a choice between those two, then providing decent facilities for the 11-16 stage must surely be more important than the relocation of the Sixth Form Centre?

So where will debate go next month? Who knows? One thing the whole island can surely agree on is that we need an end to this long-running saga and the constant uncertainty it brings with it. Hopefully a second thing we can all agree on is that such desperation for ‘closure’ is no excuse for embracing a very bad outcome. This is an education system with which generations of Guernsey youngsters will have to live.

It seems we will face several amendments. One is for three 11-18 schools which has already been announced by Deputy Jonathan Le Tocq. Education says that’s unacceptable because it breaches its ‘guiding principle’ that the sixth form should not be split. In fact its main reason for claiming its proposals ‘tick the most boxes of any option’ is that they comply with a set of principles it has determined itself. Odd approach that. ‘My preferred option looks just the same as my preferred option.’

Could three 11-18 colleges work? Of course they could. The sixth forms would be sub-optimal in size and would need to be very closely federated in order to offer a broad set of curriculum choices – but it could work. It does at the private colleges. The annoying thing is that those sixth forms would be a far better size within two 11-18 colleges.

Then will Deputy Andy Cameron be laying an amendment from within the committee for his preferred ‘do little’ option? If he does and it allows proper investment to become affordable at Les Beaucamps and the Grammar School, it is surely worthy of consideration. Indeed it is always worth paying attention when a new member, with fresh eyes and a moderate outlook, flags up serious concerns. That said, doing little other than closing La Mare de Carteret would be an underwhelming outcome to years of bruising debate.

How will I vote? Heaven knows. I told the electorate I was open-minded and just wanted a good solution. That’s still my stance. If this Education committee had completed and published the like-for-like comparison of possible models, demanded by its president in the last term, that would have been really helpful.

It really is tragic that process was never completed, but in its absence I suppose I will have to take a punt at what appears the best model on offer. It definitely will not be squashing four schools into three without any investment at all in our 11-16 schools to make that practical. Nor will it be paying many tens of millions to move the Sixth Form College a few hundred metres.