Pointers for the education debate

As others have pointed out, it is unfortunate, to say the least, that the limited issue of La Mare de Carteret has been placed in the forefront before the strategic context into which it will have to fit has been resolved.

But cart before the horse is only one problem; another is that the noises off-stage which have been heard so far seem to suggest that we are heading for a rerun of the same, sterile debate which characterised the last occasion when secondary education came before the States.

Some 15 years ago, the debate had an outcome that committed Guernsey to continue with a system, which was already outdated then and which, predictably, has since fallen short of providing our young with the best possible education as they prepare to take their place as young adults in a fast-changing world.

That last debate was thoroughly depressing and resembled a Pavlovian dance of firmly closed minds. Only two options were on the table: the status quo of selection at 11-plus for college, grammar and high schools; or a non-selective, one-size-fits-all solution along the lines of the English comprehensive system. That neither option was appropriate for the 21st century appeared not to matter.

Instead of objective analysis leading logically to considered conclusions, the thinking process seemed to go into reverse. As a first step, opposing ideological positions were taken and were then followed by desperate analysis and the highly-selective use of 'evidence' in an attempt to justify them.

As the next debate approaches, it is relevant to examine why minds were so firmly and so harmfully shut 15 years ago. On one side, those who advocated the continuance of the status quo seemed to be motivated as much by the awfulness of the only alternative on offer – that of the demonstrably failed English comprehensive system – as by any objective appraisal of how well or badly the island's traditional approach was performing. In their view, they were used to what we had, it seemed to work, and if it was working, why fix it? Opposing them were minds just as firmly closed. Some were ideologically opposed to selection on principle, never mind whether or not it was sensible. Alongside them were members of the educational establishment who appeared to be single-issue prisoners of their professional experience rather than laterally-thinking beneficiaries of it.

The debate 15 years ago and its consequences ought to send clear messages to those who will shape the debate this time.

1. They should first commit themselves to an objective analysis of how well or badly our secondary education system is working. I believe such analysis would show both successes and failures.

One apparent success is our provision of special needs education. In Le Murier School, we have a modern, purpose-designed facility which is well-placed to provide special, targeted education complemented by appropriate integration with its mainstream near-neighbour.

Another success – albeit a qualified one – is the education provided by the colleges, the Grammar School and the Sixth Form Centre. Their students compare well with their counterparts in the United Kingdom, but we must bear in mind that the standards achieved are below those of many countries in the developed world.

Set against these successful elements, the current system clearly lets down two categories of students.

First, there are far too many who would benefit from a highly academic secondary education but who do not gain entry to the Grammar School. This goes far beyond the so-called 'borderline' candidates, as is evidenced by the large numbers who do well at the high schools and then re-engage successfully with their Grammar contemporaries at the Sixth Form Centre.

That being the case, why separate them in the first place? After all, it is not as if they find themselves receiving a high-school education as a result of a careful assessment of the most suitable education for them; far from it, it is simply because an arbitrary limit to Guernsey's provision of grammar school places has led to the numbers running out before theirs came up.

Equally let down are those students who would prefer technical and vocational studies alongside those of literacy and numeracy but are denied that choice until they reach 16 years of age. Instead, they are dragged through an academic core curriculum for much of which they may not have either enthusiasm or particular aptitude. It is not surprising therefore that some of them leave school with the double handicap of inadequate academic qualifications on the one hand and under-developed technical and vocational skills on the other. They deserve better and Guernsey's employers need better.

2. To those who are wedded ideologically to the belief that selection of any sort and at any age is both unfair and wasteful, the message is threefold. First, when considering the provision of equal educational opportunities for all, please do not confuse equal with identical. Equal and fair opportunity is laudable, sensible and achievable; identical opportunity is neither of these. Secondly, please do not demean the debate about selection by claiming that it is all about making a crude and divisive choice between brain and brawn. To do so is patronising and is the product of a lazy analysis that does less than justice to the wide range and diversity of our young people's talents. Thirdly, please resist the temptation to use education as a tool for social engineering; it doesn't work.

3. To those members of the educational establishment whose experience of secondary education either here or in the United Kingdom has left them predisposed against the principle of selection, please keep an open mind and look to the example provided by the secondary education systems of countries that have a track record of economic, social and cultural success.

Most German children, for example, having started school at the age of six (in Guernsey it is four), are separated at the age of 10/11 into three different kinds of secondary school according to their talents and their parents' choice. Between them, the three types provide for a range of academic, technical and vocational studies. A small minority of German Länder (States) offer the alternative of a Gesamtschule (comprehensive school), but these are the least popular choice of parents.

German selective secondary education is followed seamlessly by excellent apprenticeship schemes as alternatives to tertiary education at training colleges and universities.

If other examples of successful selective education are required, please take note of quadri-lingual Switzerland's and multi-cultural Singapore's consistently high rankings awarded by the Programme for International Student Assessment (Pisa). We may not wish to emulate Singapore's authoritarian version of democracy, but their education system is a world-beater and is based upon selection, after six years of primary education, into three distinct secondary streams. Contrast their high Pisa ratings with the low rankings achieved by the UK's comprehensive system. That is not to say that selection is a pre-condition of educational success; countries such as Finland and Estonia achieve good Pisa ratings through their excellent comprehensive schools. But, the lesson to be drawn from across the developed world is that secondary education based on selection and diversity has a proven record of success in preparing young people for adulthood in a way most appropriate to their wide-ranging talents.

Furthermore, and just as importantly, the success of diversity has decisively discredited the oft-repeated argument that it is wasteful, socially divisive and not appropriate to the 21st century.

I do hope that the coming debate will be enriched by cool analysis and good evidence rather than diminished by prejudice and ideology.

The prospects are not altogether promising. I hear that opposing trenches have already been deeply dug. I also hear that the anti-selection teaching establishment is well ensconced among the influential senior ranks of the Education Board's civil service, as well as in the Board's political membership where they are allied with others ideologically opposed to selection. That is a pity, for the issue is so important to Guernsey's future that it deserves better than resolution by the clash of closed minds.

In the 21st century, diversity is an essential ingredient in the secondary education of any country aspiring to success, and there is a genuine debate to be held over how Guernsey should provide that diversity so as to do justice to the wide range of differing talents offered by the island's young.

The debate should include cool consideration of the questions raised. Should the diversity be provided by separate schools or within same schools? What should be the role of selection in providing that diversity? What would be the appropriate method of assessment and selection, the appropriate balance between examination and teacher assessment? At what age should assessment and selection be made? Is age 11 after seven years of full-time education too early; is age 16 after 12 years of compulsory, dirigiste education too late? In allocating places, what should be the balance between student/parental choice and direction by the authorities?

My own analysis has led me to conclude that whilst selective rather than comprehensive secondary education would best serve the island's interests, our current approach to selection is outdated. To use the modern jargon, we select 'dumb' and should learn to select 'smart' in the future. The result of dumb selection is a grammar school with a clear identity and purpose but three high schools which, as if by chance and afterthought, and certainly through no fault of their own, find themselves as hybrids. If the States can afford a four-school solution, my preference would be to re-role the high schools to form a second grammar school and two technical schools, the latter offering a completely overhauled curriculum whilst retaining the core studies of literacy and numeracy.

Such a balanced provision would offer parents and students the sort of choice given to their counterparts in some of the most successful and best educated countries of the developed world. If they can do it, why not we?

If the States find themselves constrained to only three schools, then I would propose two grammar schools and a large technical school. The term 'grammar school' may be offensive to some and is after all an anachronistic misnomer, so we could perhaps agree to settle on academies and technical schools. Most importantly, the educational opportunities provided by them would offer much-needed diversity but without giving anyone the excuse to label them as best and second best.

I hope this modest offering might help to kick-start the debate on the future of secondary education in Guernsey. May it be a more enlightened debate than the one we endured last time. And remember, it is the small end of the telescope which should be applied to the eye.

RICHARD GRAHAM,

Veue du Guet, Rue de la Lande, Castel, GY5 7EH.