We need to invest in our public schools, not subsidise wealthy private businesses

I fully support the Education committee’s decision to reduce funding to the private colleges down to £900,000 annually. I’ve been concerned reading this week that an amendment may threaten to reduce the amount cut, or maintain the funding. I think the funding must be cut for the following reasons:

In the debate over the future of college funding, I think several major points have been left out. I am not criticising the colleges, but they do not deserve £4.4m. of public money. It is a good idea to reduce the funding from £4.4m. down to £900,000 for the following reasons:

1). The States should not be using public money to fund private schools. This not an argument for cutting that money: it should absolutely be spent on Guernsey’s public schools. The colleges are businesses. I assume (as in the UK) that they are already exempt from tax as educational charities. Whether they are or not, they do not need public subsidy. This is especially vital when the island’s schools are about to undergo an important change. Extra money can only streamline this change.

2). If the colleges want extra money but do not want to raise fees, they should hire more fundraising staff, as private schools do the world over. They could have fundraising events, as they already do. They can use their network of wealthy alumni. They can reprioritise their expenditure. Lots of people have expressed support for the colleges, so a private fundraising drive seems like it would go well.

3). The amounts of money per non-special place holder pupil are not that high contextually. A Guernsey Press article indicated that currently a non-special place holder receives a public subsidy of about £2,000. A year at Elizabeth College costs £11,340, Ladies’ College costs £10,200 and Blanchelande costs £9,540.

A Google search reveals that the average annual rate for a British day-private school is £15,550. So, despite the fact that Guernsey is one of the most expensive areas of Britain, with higher average wages, island colleges charge considerably less than the going rate.

A rise of £2,000 per non-special place holder student would still leave island colleges cheaper than the British average. This increase could also be phased in over several terms or longer, subsidised by the colleges’ own foundations, if they saw fit. The idea that no one will be able to afford the colleges following the removal of public subsidy is just not true. There will not be an exodus of non-special place holder families, and indeed some incoming students who would have been special place holders thanks to the 11-plus will now be full fee-paying pupils. Some students who would have gone to Grammar will be sent to the colleges. This will balance out over time. While exact figures obviously aren’t available, the notion of the public sector immediately flooding with ex-private pupils seems unrealistic.

That £2,000 per pupil re-ploughed into the public system could do a lot of good things.

Equally, it is the responsibility of companies to entice new families to the island. If these families demand private education for their children, businesses will have to provide for this relatively modest increase. The notion, raised a few times in the Guernsey Press, that whole sectors are going to collapse due to this change is silly. These successful companies will do what they need to do, if incoming families demand it.

4). It has been raised that this change will make the colleges more exclusive. It is the job of the States to make our public schools as good as possible. It is not their role to subsidise private school fees with money that should be spent on children in the public system. By using public money to pay for private school places, the States are suggesting that no public school can offer as good an education. It is offering to allow what the 11-plus test deemed to be ‘the brightest’ pupils to ‘escape’ a public education. This is an awful message. A ‘non-academic bursary’ would be worse.

A States bursary to the colleges is selection by another name. Historically, wealthy families have benefited from the scholarships. Even if this practice was removed from the system, a States bursary would still be selective.

The proposal to award scholarships on the basis of ‘non-academic criteria’, as the amendment proposal states, is perhaps even more worrying than the 11-plus system.

At the least, the 11-plus, flawed though it was, was accountable, consistent and produced statistical evidence that could be used to compare pupils against each other. It supposedly measured academic ability. The main (although not only) point of school is to nurture academic ability.

How would vague non-academic criteria be fairly assessed? Who would make these decisions? If the decisions are made on something like sporting or musical skill, one would have exactly the same problem as with the 11-plus – more privileged pupils would be more likely to win the scholarship. If it was based on something even more subjective, like the personalities of the pupils, then it could never be a fair use of public money. Such a test would be more socially divisive than the 11-plus was before it. Instead of simply not being clever enough to get to the colleges, pupils would now not ‘be good enough’ as people. This idea is simply Victorian.

The colleges are not academically selective (or far less than the Grammar School was).

What justifies the States’ time to administer such a scheme, when it is the job of the States to make our public education system world-class? It has been suggested that the private schools could share some facilities with other schools or open them up to other children. This is a really good idea. However, private schools on the mainland do this without any public subsidy, as a reflection of the fact that they (the school at large) are privileged members of society. We don’t need to give them public money in order to share in the resources and expertise of the colleges. And even under the proposed changes, we will still be giving them £900,000 per year anyway – hardly a small sum.

We need to invest in our public schools, not subsidise wealthy private schools. In addition, a States bursary would be a huge insult to parents and pupils of the closing Grammar School. It would be an insult to all staff, parents and pupils in the public system and sends a terrible message about the States’ confidence in the upcoming changes.

Guernsey state schools can and do provide excellent education and environments for pupils and they should be continually improved. Extra money will help them to do so.

If the colleges want to implement a scholarship system they are free to. However, they should fund it themselves.

I urge deputies to reject the proposals to maintain this funding. A reduction from £4.4m. to £900,000 is the sensible and correct thing to do.

Name and address withheld.