Agenda-driven deputies must not be allowed to ‘tread water’ over education

The simple answer is that, like everybody else, we have no idea what will emerge. The consequences of foolishly ripping up a proven and successful system, albeit fully accepting that there were many areas which could and should have been tweaked and improved, without a remotely viable proposal of what would replace it, reflects extremely poorly on this and the previous Assembly who have allowed their ideological beliefs to override everything else, including good governance and common sense.

However, notwithstanding the flawed decision-making process, the harsh reality is that the decision to abolish selection was made by the States of Deliberation (even if it did not reflect the 62% majority in favour of retaining selection in the ‘Your Schools, Your Choice’ public consultation) and we all must move on and play our part in trying to shape and then supporting the future education system to make it the best that it possibly can be.

A very real concern, right now, is that it is easily possible to foresee a scenario whereby the current infighting among several deputies, with their own agendas, will result in a lengthy period of treading water. Such delays will continue to have a detrimental effect in retaining and recruiting teachers and will also continue to provide uncertainty for our islands’ children.

No one can predict whether Policy & Resources will ultimately agree to fund whatever structure the States decide to adopt, which could easily see that decision ripped up and the whole process having to start all over again. We will then be perilously close to the next General Election in April 2020, and if nothing is fully resolved by then it is a racing certainty that absolutely everything would be up for debate again as a major election issue, including selection, the 11-plus and the retention of the Grammar School.

Our views on the core issues are as follows.

Firstly, as we say above, the decision-making process employed by two successive States was flawed. It focused almost solely on selection and not on the wider picture. We believe that the decision on our future education system must be based on achieving the desired educational outcomes. If the present course is followed, the States are about to make another equally flawed decision.

The decision must not be based on the school buildings.

The fact is that recent school buildings have shown they are designed only to last for 25 years or so. If any school sites end up being closed as schools, then there will be enormous demand for using those brownfield sites for alternative purposes. Rest assured that the sites will not be left to rot. Pursuing a policy designed purely to continue use of a building is the wrong starting point.

Secondly, we believe that Policy & Resources needs to commit, within reason, to fund whatever new schools need to be built.

It must be the democratically-elected States making the decision based on the desired educational outcome. If that means that some non-essential and lower priority capital projects have to be deferred, then so be it, such is the importance of education to our future.

Thirdly, it is our view that two 11-18 schools are highly preferable over three 11-16 schools. If the principle is accepted that the two most important factors are the student and the teacher and not the buildings, it will be far easier to attract high quality teachers to teach the entire 11-18 age range, and having two such schools will enable more effective streaming or setting. Far more importantly, having two large schools could enable the ‘postcode lottery’ already in operation in the island to be overcome. The two schools could teach identical core subjects in Years 7, 8 and 9, but both schools could have specific faculties in Years 10 and 11, depending on which future direction the pupil is likely to want to go.

Pupils and parents could choose at age 11 which of the two schools they wish their child to attend, based on their (then) anticipated preference of faculties for Years 10 and 11, and there should be wide scope to switch to the other school at the end of Year 9 if the pupil’s preferred faculties have subsequently changed.

For example, Dick Taylor, a former head of Humanities Department at Les Beaucamps School, former head of the Education Development Centre and a former deputy director of Education, is suggesting that a possible division of faculties between the two 11-18 schools could be along the lines of:

n Faculty of Advanced Academic Study, usually leading to A-levels or the International Baccalaureate

n Faculty of Business and Finance

n Faculty of Technology, Construction and Engineering

n Faculty of Health, Personal Wellbeing and Child Development

n Faculty of Communication, Design, Drama and Culture

Fourthly, we believe that age 16-18 education needs a fresh approach. With the colleges having secured future States funding, albeit only for seven years at present, we believe that every pupil aged 16-18 should be able to access any course offered by either of the two 11-18 schools, or by any of the colleges, or by the College of Further Education. No subject or combination of subjects would be closed to any pupil.

The two 11-18 schools should work especially closely with the College of Further Education, with the other colleges only being utilised if a pupil wishes to study a subject which is only run by the colleges. Logistically, from age 16 onwards pupils are far more likely to be able to get themselves from location A to location B if necessary.

Let us not forget that the previous Education Committee and Education board did a massive amount of work in relation to their ‘one school, four sites’ federation proposal which had large numbers of pupils and teachers from 11-16 travelling between the four sites.

A ‘federation’ for 16- to 18-year-olds (and for 19-plus students) would require only a fraction of the amount of mobility which the ‘one school, four sites’ proposal entailed and it would be limited to students aged 16+, not 11- to 16-year-olds.

Fifthly, it is our view that the College of Further Education should be totally revamped and upgraded, so that it is far better equipped to meet the needs of our current and future workforce. The importance of the College of Further Education to Guernsey must not be under-estimated and few could argue that it hasn’t been neglected in recent years.

University is not for everyone and a growing number of young islanders are opting to instead start studying for professional qualifications at age 18. There needs to be a facility to study law, accountancy, economics, media etc. on the island after taking A-levels. There is no reason why such courses should not be offered by the College of Further Education, working in conjunction with professional bodies. Employers must work a lot more closely with the College of Further Education to make sure that the right courses are available to the right standard.

Sixthly, we reject the tertiary college option being promoted by some, for several reasons.

One reason is the overwhelming evidence of the majority of these establishments under-performing in the UK. A second reason is the totally different culture of an 11-18 school or, for that matter, a sixth form college, where there will also be a different level of pastoral guidance for the student and the tutors’ duties are those which we all understand to be part and parcel of a teacher’s job description within a school.

In a tertiary college, the tuition is delivered by lecturers who generally have a far more arm’s-length relationship with the student, as opposed to the teacher/pupil relationship in schools. Boy students in particular benefit from the pastoral role of teachers in the school environment, as they are generally less mature at the same age than their girl colleagues.

In a tertiary college environment, with the more arm’s-length role of a lecturer, the student is left more to his/her own devices, and so the structure is not ideal for A-level students.

Under the tertiary college structure, the only alternative option for parents wishing their children to be taught A-levels in a conventional school environment would be to pay for them to be educated at the colleges.

Please forgive us if this comment offends political correctness for any reader, but we have had concerns expressed to us regarding the potential security issues posed by the diverse range of students to be accommodated on the same site as opposed to the younger students being educated together in an environment restricted to school ages.

Seventhly, and probably most importantly of all, in our view it is almost irrelevant what education structure is put in place if there is not also a massive change in how the schools are managed on a day-to-day basis. Local management of schools is long overdue and simply must happen. Let all schools manage themselves under their own board of governors and free them from the hugely unpopular bureaucracy which is currently applied from the centre.

No matter who we speak to in or around the schools, in addition to numerous politicians, it seems to be universally acknowledged that ‘the centre’ is a massive drag on school efficiency and performance. It is widely alleged within the island that there are several senior civil servants at the centre who are constant blockers of LMS. Frankly, such blockers have to be removed as soon as possible, and if it takes a States resolution to enforce that, then so be it.

This blockage has been allowed to fester for far too long and we will never get out of second gear in delivering the best possible education for our island’s most important resource – our children – if the blockers are not removed.

Finally, we all know that the island is almost entirely split on education issues. Just about every issue in recent times has seen and would have seen (if properly measured) split views of somewhere between 45% and 55%.

Around half of the population, and the States’ voting very closely mirrors this, will be vehemently against just about every proposal.

The objective now must surely be to try to come up with a package which will see 60% or even 70% being supportive. That will require far greater levels of compromise, open-mindedness and pragmatism and much less ideology from our elected politicians and from our unelected civil servants than we have seen over the past five years.

KEITH CORBIN, (Chairman) and DAVID PIESING (Vice-Chairman),

Intermediate and Grammar Schools Association.