As the States prepares to debate college funding, Dr Andy Sloan argues it should leave the one part of the secondary system that is working well alone.
I have a confession. I have an interest in this week’s College funding debate—I have two children at the Colleges. That doesn’t mean I have a conflict of interest, but it does mean I have a stake in the discussion. In truth, we all do. The future of our secondary education system matters to everyone. Our long-term well-being is closely tied to its long-term success.
In fact, I have a second confession. Until now, I had allowed this funding debate to pass me by. I naively assumed that even this ESC wouldn’t attempt to push through contentious proposals in the dying days of a discredited States. Like many, I too assumed there was little justification for taxpayers to subsidise my children’s private education.
But it turns out there are some compelling reasons to do so. According to the OECD, private schools are more socio-economically diverse when they receive public subsidies—especially when, as in Jersey, they are integrated into the state system. And as it turns out, public sector support of the private education system is the norm, not the exception, internationally. And, as The Economist recently argued, the principle of parents as taxpayers receiving some public contribution toward their children’s education is both fair and equitable.
Then there’s the practical reality: it makes little sense to undermine a vital part of our secondary education sector—one that educates one in three senior school pupils. Rather than recognising this and seeking ways to build on its success, ESC appears determined to take a wrecking ball to the system—a system that provides enormous value for money to the general taxpayer.
Not content with dismantling the previous grammar school regime—against the wishes of parents—ESC is now jeopardising the sustainability of private education. Instead of celebrating the high participation in the sector and understanding why so many families of middling income choose private schools, ESC offers no vision beyond blithely questioning the sustainability of the Colleges. At a time when so much is in a mess, I cannot fathom why anyone would think of doing anything that might break the rest of the system.
But read the ESC report, which I now have done, and you will see why. The subtext is an ideological mission. There is little regard for the potential harmful consequences the changes might create. There is little regard for the children and parents of the Colleges. Presentation of facts is selective, the research is limited—one organisation is cited 16 times. The news this week that taxpaying parents of College pupils weren’t even afforded the courtesy of a direct communication from the department explaining these proposals demonstrates a poor interpretation of the public service duty of government. ESC, it would seem, views its constituency as limited to those presently attending secondary moderns rather than all the island’s children and parents.
This episode sums up the approach of this States term. No public consultation. Selective communication. Contempt for sections of the public. Marginalisation of key stakeholders. Once again, we see an advancement of an agenda without transparency or accountability. On this basis alone, the proposals should be rejected.
This States passed its sell-by date long ago. But with nominations for the general election opening in just 54 days, it is incredible that these proposals are on the table at this eleventh and a half hour of this extended term. It has all the hallmarks of a scorched-earth strategy of a discredited regime. So I make a plea this week for common sense to prevail. Do not break another part of the senior school system, one that is working well—please, for now, leave well alone. Vote for the Ferbrache-St Pier amendment. In a touch of irony, for once, the island would appreciate inaction from the States.