Selection at 13 could be solution
IT IS, in my view, crazy for the States to be asked to take a decision on the Grammar School at this time, for two reasons: firstly the Education Board was not required to report back until the end of 2017 and secondly there is a golden opportunity to watch the debate as it unfolds on a national scale. The island needs to know the arguments on both sides nationally – it is an opportunity to evaluate this matter in the context of the bigger picture. We over here are but a microcosm of what is going on across the water. No grammar school is under threat anywhere in the British Isles, so Guernsey is already out of step even discussing the possibility. Another reason why it is absurd to take a vote at this time and, for that matter, last March, is that the matter of the independent (direct grant) colleges has been entirely ignored.
The last board spoke of bursaries, but could put no details on this because nothing had yet been negotiated with these establishments. I foresee that the three colleges will end up setting their own common entrance type tests if selection is abandoned in the States sector. The result of that would be the removal from the States sector of some of the island's most academically able pupils who would no longer have a grammar school to opt into.
There can be little doubt that, if the States of Guernsey were a local education authority within the English system, the Secretary of State would veto the destruction of an existing grammar school. This would be on the grounds that firstly there is no groundswell of public opinion demanding such a move, quite the reverse, and secondly we have running on this island a system which is demonstrably a success story and would be the envy of many areas of the UK.
In 1979, the first act of the incoming Thatcher administration was to repeal the 1976 Education Act which had sought to impose universal comprehensive education. The former Labour Education Secretary Shirley Williams had moreover lost her Commons seat.
An irony of history has brought the second woman prime minister to act in similar fashion in seeking to repeal the 1998 bill whereby the Blair administration had banned the creation of new grammar schools but leaving all existing ones untouched. Paradoxically Tony Blair, in his memoirs published in 2010, branded the abandonment of grammar schools in favour of comprehensives as 'academic vandalism'.
Polls and surveys over the past year in England have demonstrated a substantial public demand for more grammar schools. In many towns and cities grammar schools and comprehensives sit happily side by side. When the UK Government's Green Paper was published recently, Alex Chalk, MP for Cheltenham, put the following question in the Commons to the Education Secretary: 'On selective schools, does the Secretary of State agree that we must take account of local circumstances? Cheltenham has some of the strongest comprehensives anywhere in the country – they offer exemplary academic rigour – alongside an excellent grammar school. Does she agree that, where great opportunities already exist and are growing, thanks to the Government's policies, and local parents are happy with that provision, nothing should be done to disturb that delicate local balance?'
Education Secretary Justine Greening – herself educated at a comprehensive – replied as follows: 'I do, and I have been very clear today that, as part of the consultation, we understand that we need to work with local communities. This is about choice; it is not about dictating which schools people should have locally.'
The UK debate will, of course, be fought substantially on party lines, the matter of selection and grammar schools having sporadically been a political and ideological football since 1965. The hypocrisy of the situation is that many of the Labour front bench keep their children well away from comprehensives. By the same token there were States members who in March voted against selection, albeit sending their own children to private fee-paying schools.
If the 11-plus exam is to be altered, a common entrance type exam for all and any who wish to opt into it, would be a sound solution. It would apply to the colleges as well as the Grammar School.
Finally, the main emotive argument some use against selection is that 11 is too young. It seems to me that, if we were to adopt the successful Jersey model of selection at 13, which has been going for many years, it might be a good compromise. Indeed Guernsey's previous Education minister was interviewed on radio a few weeks ago. He said that his board's proposed options had included what he termed 'a third way' – i.e. selection at 13. He added that this option had been completely ignored. This was news to me, but I think it could be an acceptable solution.
GEOFFREY MAHY,
Saint-Sauveur.
