Secondary education – 2 v 3 schools

I made this speech in the debate over the different secondary school models. Just to remind anyone reading my speeches, that I post what I have written in advance, but these can change as a result of debate. In this instance, there was a concluding paragraph, which is available from Hansard.

Sir, I should state in advance I am a governor of the Ladies’ College. However, they have no opinion on this matter and I am speaking as an individual Deputy. My opinions are my own, as they say.

I have grown to detest education debates. For me the the nearest equivalent is having your wisdom tooth out. It’s starts off with a dull ache. You think that it will be ok, you hope it will be ok but it gets worse and worse and you know you have to have an appointment. You know you have a date with destiny that can’t be put off. When you get there, much like the debate itself, it can be uncomfortable, with lots of weird noises all around you. Afterwards you still numb until that wears off and then there is that residual bit of soreness and a hole I your life. However, the lead up to this debate has, to use another dental pun, capped it all. 

We should not be where we are. We have 2 models in front of us, both of which have flaws. We have a teaching workforce which feels it is not being listened to, parents who want certainty and children asking both of them what’s going on. This should not have happened. What we should’ve seen is a single policy letter, being the culmination of proper consultation, and not of the tick box variety and working together. I remember well working together with Deputies Conder and Fallaize in the last term to get a solution to the machinery of government changes in so far as they related to the Scrutiny Mangement Committee. We could’ve fought it out in the media but we didn’t and ended up with a solution acceptable to all. 

The problem has been, for too long, the obsession over buildings. Once St Sampson was built, there was an expectation for every school to be replaced. Les Beaucamps should not have been rebuilt, at least not before La Mare. The amendment seeking a 3 school model perpetuated the problem but does have to be seen in the context of the debate in March 2016.

But to argue that funds should not have been made available to investigate the alternative model at this stage is false. I believe it has probably save time and money. The alternative would have been that we would not only have had the policy letter in front of us today. But also an amendment directing that there be an investigation into a 2 school model. The policy letter doesn’t provide a slam dunk argument for the 3 school model as we’ve already heard before and during this debate and it is highly likely that there would’ve be sufficient doubts for such an amendment to be successful. As such it would’ve resulted in a much longer delay before a final decision was made.

Anyway, we are here now and we can and must make a decision now. So what should it be?

Well, I’m not an educationalist. Now they’re interesting beasts in that if you put 2 together you’ll often get 2 opinions. That’s not quite as impressive as economists who when you put them together they often come up with 3. But still, it is not helpful to those of us who have not lived in that world. We had 2 people over from the UK recently – one representing an 11-18 School, the other 6th Form Colleges. Both believe their model makes sense, that the figures prove it! And today we have heard from those who believe passionately about one structure or the other based on ‘evidence’ in inverted commas.

But I don’t care where the buildings are. On an island of 25 square miles it really is the least important issue to be worried about. I used to have walk and take a bus to school every day further than Guernsey is long. It really is not what we should be worrying about.

This really isn’t about bricks and mortar. It has become obvious to me that the number of schools is really a red herring. You can play around with the number of rooms as much as you like, but it is the organisational structure that will make a far bigger difference to educational outcomes than the physical structure. There really is no reason to get hung up on which school will be closed or which rebuilt. In our brave new world we need to consider all the schools we end up with as new, whether they are completely rebuilt or not. They willnot be community schools, but Island schools.

Now the recent presentations from Messrs Morgan and Watkin were very interesting. I didn’t agree completely with what either said although there was useful information to take on board. However, the most telling comment for me came from Mr Watkin when he was asked why if 6th Form Colleges were the answer was Mr Morgan’s Cotswold School doing so well. His response was, ‘ well that’s just because Mr Morgan is a very good headteacher’. Now that really did stand out for me. Because isn’t that what it’s all about? Effective leadership? It certainly has a huge role to play. Through the right leadership the right culture develops.

It is as true for Education as it is for Health and Care. It is not the buildings that matter, it is the people. Those people are the teachers but they are also the parents and young people. No education system will reach its potential unless each is engaged and empowered. And transformation won’t happen unless there is a culture of empathy, integrity, honesty and respect.

Therefore, whilst I have of course considered the merits of a 2 and 3 school model and believe one to be preferable to the other, how I vote is ultimately going to be based on which model will enable real transformation to take place which is informed by what we are trying to do at Health and Social Care. I should point out here that I speak as an individual and not as President of that Committee.

For me a key enabler for change is the replacement of the Education Law.

It was put in place in 1970 before I started school and before a few in this Assembly were even born. Times have changed somewhat in the last 47 years as has legislation in other areas, a clear example being the Children’s Law, which puts the interests of the child at the centre. Not the Education Office. 

Where you have a law that has the following as a clause, you know it needs updating;

‘No woman shall be disqualified for employment as a teacher in any States’ school or voluntary school, or be dismissed from such employment, by reason only of marriage.’ Is that really necessary in 2017? OK I’d get it in 1917, possibly 1967 but 2017? There are also pages over religious instruction but nothing on mental, physical, social and emotional wellbeing. It also includes requirements of the Medical officer of health which are past their sell by date and will need to be considered in line with the propositions approved by the Assembly last month. [ The Committee] may, by direction in writing issued with respect to all States’ schools and voluntary schools or with respect to any of such schools named in the directions, authorise the Medical Officer of Health to cause examinations of the persons and clothing of pupils in attendance at such schools to be made whenever in his opinion such examinations are necessary in the interests of cleanliness. Really? In 2017? 

I was really pleased to see that the alternative model calls for a rewrite of the Education Law. This was something I called for in my 2012 manifesto and have been disappointed nothing has been done in the last 5 years. In reality we should’ve had a policy letter on this Law before we decided the number of schools, but anyway.

Only the alternative model appreciates how important this change is – which really bothers me. Why don’t ESC make much of it? It seems obvious to me, but then I’m not an educationalist. The other things that surprises me that isn’t in the policy letter, given that is has come through loud and clear from the conversations I have had with teachers from a range of institutions the last few months, is how little there is in the policy letter about the governance and leadership structure other than to say senior management will be able to focus on educational outcomes. This is odd given the first sentence states that ‘First and Foremost this policy letter is about transforming education in Guernsey’. We had at the 11th hour and amendment, but that just causes delay. We really don’t need an advisory panel. CFE has a shadow Board already. It just needs the switch turned on.

What was clear from both speakers recently was the autonomy that schools have now with headteachers being responsible for multi-million pound budgets and held accountable for them. We hear from the Committee that they can’t make savings and that their budget is too low. They may well be right, the percentage cuts to budgets are not themselves evidence- based. However  I do believe that savings can be made, or greater value can be obtained, through the devolution of governance and leadership. 

I suppose my disappointment with proposition 3 in the Fallaize amendment is that there is no deadline set for a policy letter to come to the States.

Now, I’m not going to repeat what has already been said in terms of the benefits of a 2 11-18 v 3 11-16 schools with a 6th form college that really isn’t a 6th form college and a tech college which is only a part-time college. Deputy Roffey is the one that has summed up the best to date the benefits of the former over the latter. 

However, the best arguments in support of the 2 school model have come from the senior teachers and the recent letter by Mr Dennis Mulkerrin. Recurrent themes being resilience, breadth of curriculum, easier recruitment and inherently greater effectiveness and efficiency. ESC talk a lot about cost, ‘what’s the cheapest; but ultimately are silent on value for money – cost, effectiveness and efficiency. In his trip down memory lane yesterday Deputy Inder didn’t mention the fact that was something I brought up during the 2016 debate. The cheapest doesn’t necessarily mean the best. Throwing good money after bad being the operative phrase.

It’s not that I don’t think that ESC sincerely believe their model is the best but I just think that their mindset is wrong. This is not a growth mindset but a closed mindset.

One particular statement bothers me, which exemplifies the problem for me, and I quote

‘Research evidence indicates that students in 6th form colleges do better at A level than those in both 6th forms and FE Colleges.’ Really that is a nonsense statement. How on earth can you prove that statement beyond reasonable doubt? You can’t unless you can specifically do a controlled experiment. The reality is that every school in the world is unique and dependent on the cohort, catchment, staff and other external factors. There are so many variables and you can’t state that is the case for every single student. If it were the case, there would be no 6th forms attached to 11-16 schools. It isn’t the case anyway, as Deputy Fallaize made clear in his speech.

I think part of the problem is the obsession with Equality of Opportunity – that phrase beloved of the Education Dept for many a year. Again, something I picked up on in March 2016. It Appears 24 times within this document and the ESC President mentioned it more than once. But what does it actually mean? What values are they seeking to use to judge it? We don’t know. It can mean more than one thing. My concern is what ESC mean by it and I will use the example of how they have dealth with gifted and talented to demonstrate that.

Now it was my amendment that is referred to in the policy letter. At the time I laid it ED supported it but said that it wasn’t needed. If anything demonstrates why it was needed it is when you read the section entitled ‘Stretch and Challenge’ and more specifically paragraph 3.43. where it states, and I quote, ‘All our childnre and young people have their own unique gifts and talents. It is the job of every education system to nurture and feed these unique talents’. 3.44 talks about the amendment and 3,45 says how it will draft and publish a policy but, but, apparently a considerable amount of work has already been done to provide the opportunity for childnre to be and I quote, ‘stretched and challenged’. Reading that it felt like they were saying – get in your box Soulsby, this is about selection and we don’t want any selection. No it wasn’t!

All that tells me is they have paid lip service to this amendment and have done no research whatsoever. It is clear to me that They have entirely missed the point that those who are G&T often have other challenges, including autism, anxiety and mental health issues. If any of them had actually met such children and spoken to the teachers who absolutely do nurture them they will hear how such children need extra support and not just in developing their gifts and talents but for their mental wellbeing. Such children can suffer asynchronous development, they are often seen as awkward, perfectionist. They have the imagination and ability to see beyond the obvious which can make them feel very different.

As I said when I spoke to the amendment, a review of gifted and talented provision in Scotland suggested that the focus on equality of opportunities and reluctance to consider selction in the Scottish education system meant that the needs of gifted and talented pupils had largely been ignored. That was written, incidently before the latest PISA figures showing the problems facing the Scottish education system.

So, I was pleased that a better appreciation of what a policy for gifted and talented children might encompass was provided in the alternative report.

Similar to EoO and not quite understanding how to deal with it there is the other buzz-phrase of Parity of Esteem. Apparently there is an issue between academic and vocational routes. News to me. Anyhow, I fail to see how this can be resolved by putting all full-time students in one building. What is more likely to achieve that is to rebalance funding and put more money into the College of Further Education, give staff long term contracts and let the Board of Governors and Head get on with it.

And in relation to post 16,  there is the tiniest mention of T Levels in the policy letter. This is surprising as it looks like it looks like they represent a revolutionary change in technical education. Indeed, based on Mr Watkin said, it would appear 6th form Colleges, far from providing all level 3 courses in the future are likely to end up just teaching A levels, with technical colleges teaching T-Levels. That would imply this idea of having one school teaching full-time courses and another part-time would be out of kilter with where qualifications are going. That is even ignoring the fact that we were told 6th Form Colleges are Level 3 establishments designed to get students into university. 

So, finally and in summary. I said I wasn’t an educationalist. But I don’t need to be to make the right decision through taking a logical approach. It is self-evident that the alternative model provides the best option for the future of secondary education.

This is not just because having 2 11-18 schools, plus CFE is more advantageous than 3 11-16, and 2 other unique institutions, but because it is providing the environment for transformation.

But transformation will only be a success if it has the people behind it. You can’t get everyone behind it, but at least sufficient to make it happen. And my real concern is that should the policy letter be passed, the Committee are going to have an uphill battle in getting people to that point. We know teachers are concerned. We know industry is concerned and others. That does not bode well.

In fact for me I think that means the policy letter approach is too big a risk to take. We are talking 10s of millions of pounds here after all. 

Comments are closed.