Reduce college funding to help pay for La Mare
I WOULD like to comment on the ongoing 'battle' to get the La Mare de Carteret rebuild passed by our government. I would also like readers to be made aware of some of the other matters I believe are being used by States members to manipulate our education system.
We are told by T&R that we should not go ahead with the La Mare rebuild until we have a review of our education system. T&R now says we should close one of our secondary schools and build a massive high school, which would save money in the long run. Never mind whether people want a school of this size or not.
Some people felt the future of the Grammar School was in doubt and the 11-plus was going to cease if there was a review. Well, I can tell readers that this was definitely never going to happen. Why? Because the establishment will never, ever get rid of the 11-plus as if they did the funding of the colleges would stop and doubt over the viability of the colleges would result. After all, if the purpose of selection at 11 is to offer an academic education to as many of the children best-suited to it, why not just have two grammar schools and only two high schools?
In 2011, a review of how the States helps to fund the colleges was undertaken. An agreement was reached whereby taxpayers' funding of the colleges would reduce by £1.1m. per year by 2018, or roughly £1,279 per pupil per year – clearly that is not going to happen.
In 2011, the States gave the colleges £4.88m. of taxpayers' money. In 2014, that contribution was £4.803m. (my thanks to Deputy Laurie Queripel, who was the only deputy I contacted who could provide this information – even the president of T&R didn't know).
Bear in mind that while these contributions were being made we closed St Andrew's School and St Sampson's Infants School because we could not afford them. Now, given the lifespan of the proposed new LMDC is 60 years, during that time the States will give around £288m. to the colleges as things stand – much more if you factor in 60 years of RPIX increases. However, we cannot afford, we are told, the £60m. for the three new LMDC schools.
It has always been said that if subsidies to the colleges were removed, lots of parents would move their children to the state sector. Maybe that would happen, maybe not, but 400 or so could be accommodated – 300 at the high schools and up to 120 at the Grammar School. As rumour has it, there are 120 spare places there, so this would involve very little extra cost. However, if this happened it would be detrimental to the colleges. Personally, I think very few would move.
In practice the demographic of the people who pay to send their children to the colleges means that the vast majority can afford it and there is help already available for the few that struggle to pay. There are many well-heeled parents getting help from the rest of us to help pay for private education.
I believe if the well-off paid the going rate, and a larger subsidy was given to those who struggle to pay private education fees, the colleges would thrive. After all, we have seen an unprecedented capital spend at the colleges in recent years so they must be doing OK.
So what could be done?
I would like the grant part of college funding to be reduced by 25% in 2018 when the next review is scheduled, saving the taxpayer £480,000 per year. This would still leave £1,440,900 per annum for subsidies and £2,881m. per annum for special place holders. This money should be redirected to help fund the LMDC rebuild as it is. We dont need or want mega schools here in Guernsey.
Means test the parents of college pupils so that the grant is given to those who need it. After all, everyone who sends a child to university is means tested. I believe if done correctly the people who are struggling to pay fees would get more help than now. If it was decided that half the fee-paying parents did not merit a subsidy, for example, potentially those who did would get a larger subsidy than is now paid direct to the colleges.
The States should negotiate a favourable rate for the 52 special place holders in each year.
Clearly the above is a redistribution of wealth but we are told these are austere times and savings need to be made. I believe the above is fairer to all concerned.
KEVIN DODD,
Address withheld.