Guernsey Press

Letter: Has former Education member changed his tune on selection?

THE front page headline in Monday 22 July’s Guernsey Press presented an eye-catching quote: ‘’.

Published
Last updated
Letter writer Jon Langlois questions whether Deputy Carl Meerveld has changed his position on selective education. (25472493)

On first reading, it appears to be verbatim and sourced from one of the most energetic and, arguably, least predictable of our politicians, Deputy Carl Meerveld.

But both the subtle use of single quotation marks in the headline (which can simply denote the concept behind some spoken words) and the sentence’s abbreviated form suggest some literary licence was used here for journalistic reasons.

However despite the headline providing yet a further reminder that Press coverage of local education issues has at times struggled to achieve reasonable neutrality when it comes to the selective/non-selective system debate, that is not the main reason for writing this letter.

If indeed it turns out that Deputy Meerveld is seriously contemplating resurrecting the local 11-plus debate, then I would recommend that he refresh himself by revisiting a formative, if not seminal, speech made on the second day of the education debate late in 2016.

This particular contribution, passionately made, came from a new Assembly member, who had deliberately saved it for his maiden speech because he believed strongly that a non-selective education system was ‘so important to the future of our society and economy’. It sets out a cogent and formidable case against the previous, iniquitous selective system which operated within the Bailiwick of Guernsey.

It can be found at: gov.gg/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=105298&p=0 or read in a paper version via the libraries in the Hansard Report of Proceedings at States Meetings, Billet XXIX, Volume V, No. 35, pages 74-75 (1 December 2016).

A speech that was delivered to the Assembly by Deputy Carl Meerveld, no

less.

Jon Langlois,

Grandes Mielles Lane,

Vale.

Editor’s footnote: Deputy Carl Meerveld replies:

I can understand how your readers could perceive the headline as my advocating a return to the 11-plus system, but this could not be further from the truth. I led the charge to end the 11-plus system and believe it is not the best education system for our children for all the reasons given in my speech.

When I gave that speech in November 2016, the States were debating whether to endorse the previous Assembly’s decision to move to a three-school non-selective system or to retain the four-school selective system, with no deputies proposing any two-school models. It culminated in the Assembly instructing the previous committee to work up detailed plans for implementing a three-school non-selective model.

The previous committee put aside its differences (three members had voted to retain selection and two had voted against) and worked diligently to deliver what they had been instructed to do.

Our committee’s intention was to deliver three schools with the quality standards, facilities and resources of the Grammar School. Schools designed to provide equal opportunity to all students. These schools would have stretched those with abilities through setting in key subjects while providing those finding them difficult with support. It would have been an education system with parity of esteem for both vocational and academic pursuits designed to optimise the potential of every student.

Our committee’s plans, which would have had the new facilities half-way through construction by now, were rejected in January 2018 in favour of a loosely defined two-school proposal. The two-school scheme was developed by a group of deputies who in effect unseated that committee and are now presenting their two-school model for debate and potential approval on 4 September.

There are many issues with the new committee’s two-school proposals, but I am particularly concerned by the lack of practical details regarding implementation. The lack of detailed plans is particularly disappointing and concerning considering this committee has been working on them for two years (longer than the previous committee served). They began developing them six months before becoming committee members (with financial support from P&R) and replaced the previous committee 18 months ago.

For an informed debate, it is essential to consider and compare all options in detail side-by-side. Only through a detailed comparison of educational benefits, practicality and costs can we make an informed decision on which structure is best for our young people. Inevitably this means including the old selective four-school model for comparison alongside the currently proposed two-school model and the previous committee’s three-school model.

My preference is still very much a three-school model similar to that proposed by the previous committee. However, the two-school model presents so many risks to our education system that I may reluctantly be forced to support retention of our old, flawed, four-school selective model if pursuing a revised three-school model is rejected.