Deflection of ESC’s plans will cause further turmoil

I recall about 18 months ago there was another letter in the Press from a group of teachers supporting the 11-18 model. Some of the points they made were:

u Students from all Key Stages are more likely to be taught by teachers who are specialists in their subject, and not, as is the case in smaller schools, often by teachers teaching subjects unfamiliar to them.

u Generally there are at least two specialist teachers in each subject in the larger schools, enabling more collaboration and the sharing of expertise.

u The focus in 11-16 schools is on GCSE results, whereas in the 11-18 schools more input can be given to students on their progression path to the next stage.

u Generally, 11-18 schools are better equipped, benefitting all Key Stages because of the needs of the A-level courses.

u An 11-18 school acts as a whole community with older students supporting the younger ones who will have role models to aspire to.

u The extra-curricular activities in sport, drama, music, and a myriad of after-school clubs will be enriched in the larger schools.

u Continuity will be enhanced as students moving to the sixth form will already be known to the staff.

u A larger school will be able to provide non-teaching staff supporting the less able and offering more pastoral care.

u Recruitment of teachers will ease as there would be more opportunities for all teachers to aspire to A-level teaching, a more attractive proposition than in the smaller 11-16 schools.

u The teaching of the sciences and languages will be greatly enhanced.

These are just a few of the points made, all very pertinent to the present situation.

I write this simply to point out that strong cases can be made for both models of secondary education. There will always be ‘the latest research says . . .’ which can often offer more questions than answers.

Eighteen months ago the States made a decision by a large majority to follow the two-school model.

To this end the ESC committee and officers have worked tirelessly and have already put many aspects of the plan into motion. This has been essential to enable a smoother transition when the capital investments are ratified next month.

Should the States be persuaded to move away from these plans I believe secondary education in the island will be set back by at least five years. This will do a great disservice to our young people and all those who have dedicated themselves to delivering exactly what the States asked them to do, on time and within budget.

Any deflection at this stage will mean more uncertainty and more prolonged waiting and no doubt more turmoil. I believe the young people of Guernsey deserve better than this.

I hope the States, unlike the authors of the recent letter, will vote with their heads and not their hearts.

J. R. THOMPSON,

Torteval.