Why remove selection without firm replacement plans?

It was received gratefully as, not having received the letter directly but having a two-year-old child, I assumed that it would clarify matters as to the options for my son’s future secondary education. The States’ decision had been taken to remove the 11-plus selection process, so I was eager to see the replacement plans to fully understand the choices that lay before my son for his education. I finished the letter in a state of astonishment.

There were no answers; just multiple poorly detailed proposals of what was still to be considered. Incredible. A decision had been made to remove something but without a firm idea of how to replace it. This is not totally dissimilar to saying we will be tearing down the hospital in a few years, but can’t give any of the population who need ongoing treatments any comfort as to how they will be cared for once the wrecking balls have moved in. This is outrageous and should be considered unacceptable by all Guerns.

Having listened to much of the States’ debate on 27 and 28 September 2017, I was at least slightly glad to hear occasional recognition by some of those present that the currently sitting deputies should be thoroughly ashamed of the decisions which have delivered them to such a point of uncertainty; although one deputy tried to justify this by arguing the States regularly make decisions before knowing how they would be implemented.

This is, frankly, unprofessional and an indirect admission of not being fit for purpose. In addition, it was noted that one of the normal rules of the debating chamber had to be suspended so that last-minute amendments could be tabled. This just screams unpreparedness and a lack of proper thought until the very last minute, disrespecting one of the most important areas our States have a duty of responsibility to all of us for.

The college funding debate seemed to miss some of the most pertinent information. Huge assumptions have been taken about what will happen to demand for fee-paying places at the colleges when assistance from the States is removed and as those who could pass the 11-plus and could have taken a place at the Grammar no longer have that option. Some say that those who would have had the free place at Grammar will now choose to pay the fees for the colleges because they either don’t want the States’ education or, quite rightly, they have no idea what the future States education structure will look like so best not gamble with your child’s future and be part of that as yet undefined ‘experiment’. Therefore, after the funding transition period, some assume the colleges will continue to fill places despite lack of States’ financial support for scholarships because there must be plenty of people able to afford the colleges’ fees.

Conversely, however, no one yet knows how much the colleges will be increasing their fees by in order to replace the lost States funding and to possibly afford their own bursary schemes. It may be that those in a middle income bracket who could currently just afford the fees each year would no longer be able to and therefore they would have no choice but to send their child to one of the two or three or four (just read ‘unknown’) new schools at the cost of the States and therefore a far larger burden on the taxpayer than the current subsidies provided to the colleges.

This could go either way. It could miraculously balance out, but there is simply no way of knowing from information presented thus far. I may be wrong but I don’t believe the most important demographic which could have given some idea of which way demand for places at the colleges might swing were canvassed properly. Surely a questionnaire could have gone to all parents of Grammar students to ask such questions as do the current ‘proposals’ lead you to think you would have sent your child to the colleges if you were presented with that scenario, and then to the Grammar and college students’ parents to ask would you still send your children to the colleges if the fees increased by 10%, 20%, 50% etc? A properly constructed questionnaire to these parents would have given more useful evidence than was used for the debate and ultimate decision-making on this important subject.

Parents should be entitled to choice with regard to how their children should be educated but this choice will be all but eroded except for those who can afford it.

Previously those on lower incomes had the options of being able to gain a place at the Grammar School, or being able to gain a scholarship to the colleges. The only option now is the as yet unknown new model or, perhaps, a place at the colleges if a new bursary system is created. A huge lack of certainty.

Previously those on middle incomes had the same options but also the option to afford (at a struggle in many cases) a place at the colleges. Given the unknown but anticipated rise in college fees, the choice may very well be taken away here completely too, meaning that parents of young children have absolutely no idea how our children will be educated.

This is not only not good enough, but is completely unacceptable and a situation which Guernsey should be thoroughly embarrassed to find itself in.

I feel sorry for Locate Guernsey trying to explain this to their clients.

Decisions on the future education of all of our children are being taken unconvincingly.

A couple of deputies even said, when stating which way they are likely to vote on funding proposals, that they would be voting for the least worst option. Surely if the States feels like this then it should start again on the Education proposals and not proceed to decision-making, and not give our children an uncertain future, until they can satisfy themselves, and the electorate, that they are fully informed and are implementing a solid plan rather than the best of a bad lot. Sadly, predictably, this will not happen.

E. N. RILEY (Mr),

St Martin’s.