Has minister already decided direction of education policy?

However, as a former primary school head teacher I was dismayed by comments attributed to the very same president in the Guernsey Press two days earlier when he stated, 'I want to get La Mare de Carteret sorted pretty damn quickly, and we need to bring a policy letter back to the States very, very quickly. I shall be listening to everyone and then persuading and explaining. The 11-plus is flawed and has to go, we know that. But the Grammar School is a great institution, so we have to keep it.'

So, where is the 'treat in the same way' gone? It seems to me, 'listening to everyone and then persuading,' has an altogether different meaning. It suggests the minister has already decided the policy direction and others will have to fall in line.

Where has the 'look, listen and learn, to review and research before making an informed decision and that means talking to the experts' approach gone?

Then in an article published on the 19 May there appears to be a bit of a U-turn, already, as commenting on his new committee the president was attributed with saying that it was too early to outline its stance before it had even met. One hopes so.

I believe the initial comments of the president were regrettable. Setting aside the three or four schools issue, the statement that we must keep selection but on a revised form other than the 11-plus is, I believe, misguided, naive in the extreme and clearly showing a complete lack of first-hand knowledge of teaching children in Years 5 and 6. Not only have I had such first-hand experience, admittedly some time ago, but I also served as a primary school head teacher representative on a working party in the middle of the 1990s that looked at a revision of the then 11-plus system. Our proposals stood in place until fairly recently. I do not have column space here to expand on the intricacies involved, they are many, but what I simply know is our adopted proposals, as we knew at the time, and any selection system at 11 are flawed.

Further, no matter whether the process is different as suggested, the general populace will always see it as the 11-plus, especially when places at a grammar school or college are involved. All the negativity and hype associated will therefore remain. Not only that, continual assessment over two years as suggested would undoubtedly incur even more stress on the children, their parents and an absolute nightmare for teachers across the island charged with administering the process. At the end of the day there will be no different end result than at present. I really struggle to understand why the ordinary commentator can't understand that selection at 11 is just not justifiable – listen to those who know.

We should be looking beyond the loss of a so-called 'great institution' and be looking to create three (or four) great institutions.

I make a plea to the minister to take his own advice – 'look, listen and learn, review and research before making an informed decision and talk to the experts', particularly as his new committee has very little, if any, senior educational experience, unlike its predecessor.

As I recall, all the relevant professionals whose 'expert' professional knowledge and experience helped inform Education's policy letter only a few months ago was very clear, selection must go, and that is the present policy of the States.

I haven't even raised the three or four school issue, which, let's remember, was forced on Education by a Treasury and Resources amendment. So rather than having a smooth transition where the opportunity for Education to move forward with plans to ensure our service is fit for the 21st century, we could be heading for further conflict and unrest which is unnecessary and can only have a huge detrimental effect on all involved in education over the next couple of years and possibly beyond.

RON DESPRES,

La Niche,

Clos de Petit Puits,

La Mare Road,

Castel.