Education letter: details on new schools were published

In fact Mr Gillson – and indeed any member of the public as well as members of the States – can find all of the detailed information which he claims is missing by reading my committee’s policy letter and accompanying programme business case, which were published on 5 July and 16 August respectively.

Specifically, the supposedly missing information which has in fact been published concerns the following elements of the new model of education agreed by the States last year: size of the proposed extensions; number of additional classrooms; capacity of the school and colleges; annual running costs; and projections of the number of students in the future.

For example, Mr Gillson stated that the additional space required to establish the two 11-18 colleges is unknown. In fact the extensions necessary at both sites are known and are fully in the public domain. This information can be found on pages eight to 12 of the policy letter and on pages 77 to 79 and in appendices six and eight of the programme business case.

The extensions necessary were initially calculated by independent education advisors commissioned by my committee and the Policy & Resources Committee. They are the result of extensive analysis based on national space standards, local curriculum requirements and projections of the number of students in the future, which was followed by architectural drawings and cost advice from quantity surveyors.

All of this detail is set out on pages eight to 12 of the policy letter and pages 77 to 79 and appendices six and seven of the programme business case.

The consequential maximum capital funding requirement for the two 11-18 colleges of £69 million is explained on pages 12 to 15 of the policy letter and in appendix eight of the programme business case. Detailed floor plans for both of the new 11-18 colleges were available for inspection at public drop-ins held by the committee in July.

The annual costs of the new 11-18 colleges are provided on page 29 of the policy letter and pages 108 to 110 of the programme business case, and all of the detailed assumptions upon which they are based are set out in appendices one to three of the latter. In his column, Mr Gillson stated that the option favoured by the committee is not the option which generates £2 million per year of savings, but the figures in the reports show clearly that this is the option favoured by the committee and which it intends to put into effect. Financial modelling was carried out by the States’ capital portfolio finance team to ensure rigorous application of financial policies and standards. This shows conclusively that the policy of one school, two colleges approved by the States last year is the most cost-effective way of improving facilities, extending opportunities and promoting excellence for all secondary school students.

Similarly, the space required by the new Guernsey Institute is set out on pages 17 to 18 of the policy letter and pages 82 to 84 of the programme business case. This was also the subject of extensive analysis by the same independent education advisors. Building size, capacity and projected student numbers are based on a similar set of assumptions to those used for the 11-18 school/colleges and are well documented in appendix six of the programme business case. The annual running costs of The Guernsey Institute are documented on pages 108 to 110 of the programme business case.

Mr Gillson’s column was also critical of the decision-making process for capital investment set out in the policy letter. It is exactly the same process to be adopted for the modernisation of the Princess Elizabeth Hospital, which the States approved overwhelmingly just a few months ago and which provoked very little public debate. The decision-making process is fully consistent with States-agreed procedures around business cases.

The business cases are developed in the form of a ‘five case model’ and cover the strategic case, the economic case, the commercial case, the financial case and the management case. The five case model is recommended by HM Treasury and the UK Office of Government Commerce. It has been widely used across central government departments and public sector organisations over the last 10 years.

Each of the five cases are developed in three stages: first in a programme business case, then in an outline business case and then in a final business case. These are three separate documents each requiring separate approval before moving on to the next stage in the overall project life cycle. This may appear to be burdensome, time-consuming and potentially costly. However, if applied correctly, they can reduce unnecessary costs and management time by eliminating at an early stage any scheme which is shown to be of low priority or which cannot deliver the key objectives of the organisation - in this case the States on behalf of the people of the Bailiwick.

So, in the case of the Committee for Education, Sport & Culture’s proposals - the policy for which was agreed by the States in January 2018 - the policy letter to be debated on 4 September seeks States approval of the capital investment necessary to establish one school in two 11-18 colleges and The Guernsey Institute, redevelop La Mare de Carteret Primary School and fund digital improvements and the period of transformation. If the propositions are approved by the States, the Policy & Resources Committee will release funding for each of these projects only subject to the approval of outline and full business cases for each one.

Links:

• Policy Letter – www.gov.gg/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=120064&p=0

• Programme Business Case – www.gov.gg/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=120704&p=0

• Appendix 6: Peter Marsh Consulting Ltd

• 11-18 school – www.gov.gg/secondaryschool

• The Guernsey Institute – www.gov.gg/fhtransformation

Committee for Education, Sport & Culture