| Author |
Message |
Roger Dadd
Guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 - 02:56 pm: |   |
THE Guernsey Reform Group, of which I am a member (www.guernseyreformgroup.org.gg) sees it as a prime responsibility of any modern democracy to ensure that it invests in the knowledge and skills of its workforce both for its present prosperity and the future. No investment is more important and is more certain of a positive and guaranteed return to the taxpayer than education and training.
It is therefore with mounting alarm but sadly no surprise that I learn that our politicians and public servants are once again meddling with one of the real success stories for this island over the past 15 years. I write of the GTA University Centre, which since 1996 has established itself as a ‘jewel in the crown’ of Guernsey’s education infrastructure, admired by our competitor jurisdiction, valued by all sectors of our business community and accredited by universities and professional institutions too numerous to mention.
For a modest annual investment by the taxpayer, the GTA offers a huge range of training opportunities to this island, including undergraduate and post-graduate degrees, professional qualifications and specialist training programs – all delivered for us in Guernsey and at a fraction of the cost of sending out staff and students to the United Kingdom for similar education opportunities.
And yet, at this critical time, we find that the Commerce and Employment Department and the Guernsey Financial Services Commission, the GTA’s two stakeholders, are threatening the very existence of the GTA by withdrawing funding and/or changing the governance and operation of the institution.
It seems that our politicians and the GFSC commissioners just cannot leave an innovative institution such as the GTA to get on with running itself and provide the extraordinary educational opportunities it currently offers our island.
Last year, for an investment of just £445,000 of taxpayer’s money, the GTA University Centre delivered more than 400 separate courses in support of our workforce – would that other investments by our States members and public servants could offer such positive returns.
Equally damaging is the GFSC’s decision to retain for itself the funding provided by the finance sector to help fund the GTA.
This is truly shocking both in terms of the manner in which it is being done and the failure by the GFSC to see the critical importance of investing in the skills of the island finance sector. If the GFSC has financial problems of its own, it should address its cost structure, not take for itself funding provided by our finance sector for a much smaller organisation.
One recent example of the GTA’s entrepreneurship and innovation and one in which I have a particular interest has been the recent decision by the UK’s Law Society and Bournemouth University to approve the delivery of the Post Graduate Diploma in Law in Guernsey.
Up to now, the only choice for aspiring advocates and anyone else interested in undertaking a law degree would have been to go to the United Kingdom for either a full-time course or make regular trips to undertake a part-time course. Now, thanks to the innovative flair of the GTA, our workforce has the opportunity to undertake the programme in Guernsey at a fraction of the cost and with minimum disruption to their work or home life.
Similar opportunities are replicated throughout the GTA’s vast portfolio of courses. A portfolio which none of our competitor jurisdictions can offer and which is available in Guernsey simply due to the hard work and vision of the GTA.
The GTA model is unique, it works, it costs us the taxpayer a fraction of the cost of similar institutions and yet our politicians seem to think they can make it work better by controlling it – I shudder at the prospect. The GTA University Centre is worth saving. There is no evidence that it needs to be changed – we need to act now before what has taken nearly 15 years to create is lost to political dogma and short-term financial expediency.
ROGER DADD. |
Martin Best
Guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 - 02:54 pm: | |
I AM writing in response to the letter in the Guernsey Press on Monday 9 August entitled, ‘Give schools greater power.’
Your correspondent suggests that the Education Department should give teachers greater powers over pupils in the vicinity of schools and over awkward parents as well.
Assuming that the Education Department had the power to grant extra powers to teachers, which it doesn’t, what would this entail? Perhaps the ability to impose fines, or to imprison students and their parents, or corporal punishment?
Let us try a dose of reality.
Children know that the state, in all its manifestations, has little or no power over them. This includes teachers and the police (fixed penalties notwithstanding). This position cannot be reversed. No civilised society would consider the return of imprisonment for children or corporal punishment.
The primary responsibility for showing children how to behave rests with the parents – no one else.
Parents have the first six years and 138 hours per week to accomplish this task, and yes, I do know that many parents work.
Teachers, on the other hand, have a mere 30 hours per week in which to educate children in an academic sense. If parents neglect their responsibilities, as so many do, then teachers have even less time, because they are distracted by unruly children.
The solution to the problem of unruly children rests with the parents and with the wider family. We can never go back to the ‘good old days’ when if we answered back to an adult, we expected, and received, a ‘clip round the ear.’
MARTIN BEST.
Bestm@ cwgsy.net |
Deputy Carol Steere
Guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2010 - 02:46 pm: | |
I REFER to a statement made in the Comment column of Wednesday 4 August 2010 that the Education Department took on ‘a huge number of additional staff, some 50 full-time equivalents’ in 2009.
The Treasury and Resources Department has confirmed that it made a mistake with the figures it published and will be correcting these in the 2011 Budget report, which is due to be published in November.
Treasury’s latest calculation confirms an increase of 14 FTEs in that period – these posts were identified in the department’s narrative published in the 2009 accounts.
The posts were used to provide additional administrative staff in the secondary sector schools and additional caretaking and cleaning staff for the Baubigny Schools – and they also account for staff appointed to cover staff on maternity or paid sick leave.
A new senior post for asset management was approved to help ensure that the department achieves value for money from its resources, an additional member of staff has been appointed to manage student grants and a new member of staff has been appointed to handle the increased administration of police
checks for all those working in the service, whether paid staff or volunteers.
The Education Department keeps it deployment of staff resources under constant review and only appoints additional staff where not to do so would impair its obligations to the island’s community to deliver its services.
DEPUTY CAROL STEERE,
Minister,
Education Department. |
Y. Ogier
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2010 - 03:34 pm: | |
RE. THE States saving monies – they should cut the subsidies to the three colleges. As private companies, they should be withdrawn. What benefit to other people does this provide?
Just in my small circle, people I know have children at the colleges, having passed the 11-plus, but these children were paid to go to the three colleges from five to 11 years old and four of five I know are children of teachers.
If the scholarships are for brighter pupils and the taxpayer is paying, these places should go to States school pupils as if the places go to these pupils it does not do the colleges any favours as the parents would still carry on paying.
So stop the States’ monies or make the places for pupils who did not go to the college’s junior schools.
Y. OGIER |
A. J. White
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2010 - 09:54 am: | |
THE means test for parental contributions for higher education has been changed for students commencing university in the autumn of this year.
The change affects only those students whose parents are not living together, and where the parent they are living with has a new partner residing with them.
In this eventuality the parental contribution is based on the earnings of the parent the student is living with plus those of the parent’s new partner.
I suspect that in the vast majority of, if not all, cases the new partner would have no legal or moral economic obligation towards the student or the funding of their education.
According to the Education Department, the previous system was criticised for being inequitable as it ‘rewarded marital breakdown’.
The obvious answer would be to treat the parents as though they were still together and assess them on their joint income.
This has to be the most equitable solution as it is treating parents who live together and parents who live separately in exactly the same way.
The absurdity of a means test for parental contributions, which is not based on parental means, is beyond belief.
A. J. WHITE. |
Ella Botzenhardt
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2010 - 03:27 pm: | |
EVERY May the lives of many Bailiwick children are changed when 11-plus results are released, myself included as four years ago I too went through this unfair selection system.
The 11-plus system falsely labels children into two groups, pass and fail. Here I must give credit to the primary schools, as four years ago my teacher tried her very best to convince me I had 'passed' to Les Beaucamps. Yet this is not how I or my fellow pupils understood it. I had failed the test and I felt I was being unfairly labelled as less worthy of the better school.
Year 6 pupils are not stupid; they understand that by not gaining a place at Grammar or College, they have achieved a lower mark than their fellow students. This makes them feel not only inferior, but it greatly knocks their self confidence.
Secondly, the classroom dynamic changes dramatically after the results. I was pressured by my conscience to play with the people who were going to the same school as me, leaving previous friendships behind. The 11-plus system rips apart friendships and knocks self-confidence in students, often discouraging children from working to their full potential.
You cannot judge whether a child is intellectual at 11 years old. They have many years to grow and achieve their full potential. Yet many of those who failed the 11-plus will walk around feeling like they are incapable of reaching the standards of their College and Grammar counterparts.
Now I have realised that my intelligence cannot be judged by a test, which is incapable of fulfilling its purpose, as many state school pupils do just as well, if not better, than their counterparts. Yet, most 11-plus age children do not realise this before they have shed many tears over the matter.
If all of us are taking the same GCSE exams and the majority of us end up at Grammar School Sixth Form, why is it necessary to split us in such a way? Why do we cause our children so much harm and distress? Surely the system is old and outdated and we should move forward with new, modern methods?
ELLA BOTZENHARDT. |
S. M. Ozanne
Guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2010 - 02:48 pm: | |
FURTHER to my letters of December 2009 and April 2010 regarding Living Streets' proposed Baubigny schools walkway, I have been passed a letter which was sent from Education to the parents/carers of some of the children which highlights its own serious concerns.
It is my understanding that there is 100% opposition from the surrounding landowners as well as from residents of Les Osmonds Lane and Bukit Estate. Two States departments, Home and Education, have concerns serious enough for them to send a combined letter to the parents of the schoolchildren warning them of the dangers of using the path and detailing a number of things the children are 'not allowed to do' when walking past the prison. A particular point of interest in the letter specifies the gateway at the back of the school will be closed if it is deemed not in the best interests of the students, effectively barring access to this walkway altogether.
I would strongly urge all members of Living Streets, along with their financial backers (Barclays Wealth, M&S, Ronez, etc), to seriously think about what they are planning to do. I would also ask that they listen to the opposition's valid reasons and put an end to this misguided venture. The money raised could be put to a worthwhile and wanted community project elsewhere and would then not risk any waste of funds by the walkway being closed by Education after an incident - which is highly likely.
I enclose the letter mentioned, which I hope you will publish, to ensure all parents and carers of children at the Baubigny schools, current and future, will have a chance to read it for themselves and see that I am not on my own in voicing my concerns over this proposal and that my objections are not prejudiced by my address, as was implied in Ms P. Wisher's response to my last letter.
S. M. OZANNE (Mrs). |
Catherine Hall
Guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 08, 2010 - 03:41 pm: | |
WITH reference to the article, 'Parents complaint reveals problems at language service' (Guernsey Press, 21 December 2009). I would not doubt the accuracy of the statements attributed to an HSSD spokesperson, but I would like to point out that they do convey a misleading impression of the Guernsey Speech and Language Therapy service.
It may well be the case that the management failings contributing to the suspension of Miss Habgood have been resolved. However, as this particular post has been vacant since last summer (2009) and will, I understand, not be filled until March (2010), better management of and support to the post are currently somewhat irrelevant.
The children concerned are not actually receiving a service. My own son, who has a severe language disorder, has had no direct contact with the service since October 2008. I would estimate that this post has probably been vacant for about five of the past seven years.
I find the comments concerning the recent review of speech and
language therapy services in Guernsey equally misleading. The review was carried out in the summer of 2008 and I understand that changes to the service have already taken place as a direct result of recommendations from this review. One can only assume that if this is the case HSSD are already fully aware of the results of the review ahead of the publication of the report later this year.
That HSSD are expecting a favourable comparison with similar units in the UK appears very positive and I have little doubt that this is true. However, what is not mentioned is that like Guernsey, similar units in the UK provide a basic service, directing resources to
preschool and primary age children. They, like Guernsey are unable to
provide the more specialist, intensive and ongoing service required by those children who have more complex language and communication needs.
In the UK, the only way children with such needs obtain the necessary level of input is to have provision written into their 'Statement of Special Educational Needs'. It then becomes a legal requirement for the local authority to provide, or obtain the relevant level of service for that child. Unfortunately, in many cases parents still have to fight for the required provision and it is one of the most common reasons for special educational needs tribunal proceedings. The legislation providing this protection to children in the UK is not relevant in Guernsey, we do not have legally enforceable statements of special educational needs, nor do we have special educational needs tribunals.
It is therefore impossible to obtain a reasonable level of service for children such as my son. The Guernsey Speech and Language Therapy service does not have access to the necessary resources.
CATHERINE HALL. |
Pat Wisher
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 28, 2009 - 11:19 am: | |
WITH reference to Mrs S. Ozanne's letter in the Guernsey Press on 18 December, 'Baubigny walkway misguided', I am happy to respond on behalf of Living Streets.
In June 2008 Living Streets opened up the proposed walkway so that parents, children and teachers could gauge the potential of the walk. More than 60 islanders took part and we gained very positive feedback. Many told us they were amazed that it took only 15 minutes to walk to the school.
We hand-delivered letters to every resident in the area - everyone in the Bukit Estate and Les Osmonds Lane and all the owners of the adjoining fields. We invited them to join us so that they could question us on any concerns they may have had, so we are disappointed that Mrs Ozanne did not contact us with her concerns at that time.
Mrs Ozanne states that her family raised objections to our planning application on the grounds that the Environment Department 'are responsible for the protection of the physical environment from activities that might otherwise compromise the wellbeing of the community'.
We assume this means that she believes that children walking to and from school will compromise the wellbeing of the community.
The pathway is intended for students coming from St Peter Port North and it branches off well before the Bukit Estate and Les Osmonds Lane. We appreciate that this is a quiet and peaceful country area and we certainly do not want to do anything to change that.
In answer to the five questions that Mrs Ozanne raises:
1. Safety measures - long, uneven track.
St Peter Port students had been used to walking long distances to their school in Les Ozouets - journeys which took 20 to 25 minutes. When I undertook a safety audit around the school in 2002, 68% of students either walked or cycled to school. It is for this reason we feel it is so important to develop this route - so that students can continue to go to school independently by walking or cycling (as well as the option of catching the bus).
As mentioned above it takes just 15 minutes to walk from Beetons to the new schools. There is, we agree, a lot of work to be done to improve the route - in particular in areas where it ponds after heavy rain. This will be undertaken by our main sponsor, R. G. Falla.
2. Street lighting.
We will not be installing street lighting - this is a green lane very close to the Marais Conservation area and it would be totally inappropriate to install lighting. The school starts at 8.35am and closes at 2.55pm. Even in the depths of winter children will not be walking to or from school in the dark. Students involved in after-school activities after dark will be told to make alternative travel/ collection arrangements.
3. Provision for surveillance (vulnerability).
We will not be installing CCTV cameras. Again, we consider this unnecessary. Guernsey people have traditionally walked in their island without expecting danger at every turn. Every weekend walkers enjoy cliff paths, green lanes and country walks such as the Saumarez Nature Trail without incident or fear. Many students used to walk through the Water Lanes to St Peter Port School without incident - an area which could be considered to be isolated. With concern about rising obesity levels, health professionals have emphasised the need to incorporate exercise into our daily routine - and what better way than the journey to and from school?
There seems to be an assumption that no one uses this route, but we have seen many people - including dog walkers, children going to and from the Bowl (and skate park), bird watchers, and adults, both walking and on bikes. Secondary school children tend to walk in groups with their friends so they are protected by force of numbers and nearly all would have mobile phones.
We consider children are far more vulnerable walking along the dangerous roads in the Bouet, Le Vrangue and Collins Road where pavements are narrow and vehicles actually drive on them. Our route gives children a virtually traffic-free walk to school - the only vehicles they will encounter will be one or two servicing the adjacent fields.
4. Emergency Services.
The green lane from the Bowl to the entrance into the vinery site is wide enough for a Range Rover and there is vehicle access to the vinery site from both Osmonds Lane and Baubigny Road so we do not believe that the area is any more difficult to access than many other small lanes in the island. Indeed, we understand that during a bird watching outing through the Fauxquets Valley a few years ago early one Sunday morning an elderly gentleman collapsed. A call on a mobile resulted in emergency services coming within minutes and he was stretchered to safety with no problems to make a full recovery.
5. Rubbish.
We agree that it is important to keep this beautiful green area clear of rubbish. Living Streets will be making arrangements to regularly maintain the route, including collecting rubbish and cutting back hedges. We did a complete clearance in July 2008 before we opened up the route. Despite this the rubbish and fly tipping has returned - which, again, indicates that islanders are aware of this route and use it.
PAT WISHER,
Secretary,
Living Streets. |
Sue Solway
Guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 24, 2009 - 12:21 pm: | |
WHAT has happened to this island? Where's our community gone?
To keep our children safe from today's technology of cars, I do not believe anybody from the high to the low could object to a walkway. In these days of obesity taking over from cancer, we should be doing everything possible to make our children walk.
Would you go from Pitronnerie (or further afar) down the Bouet, along Les Banques, up the Halfway, down Baubigny, up towards Capelles and then turn left to get to school at 14 (40 minute walk) or get the bus?
Given a choice of a 15 minute walk or the bus, which will probably make me late and take an hour, I'd choose to walk. At least I get 45 minutes extra in bed.
SUE SOLWAY.
suesolway@ gmail.com. |
S. Ozanne
Guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 18, 2009 - 02:41 pm: | |
I WOULD like to urge all parents of children who attend the Baubigny schools, current and future, to seriously consider the implications of letting their children walk unsupervised through the new walkway Living Streets intends to make.
My family raised objections to the planning request with Environment on the grounds they are responsible for the protection of the physical environment from activities that might otherwise compromise the well being of the community and I was very disappointed to learn (via the newspaper) of the permission being granted, after originally being rejected.
While I commend the idea of a car-free walkway, I believe the idea of this proposal as a safe passage for children to and from school is totally misguided.
As it appears the newspaper is the place to inform interested parties, maybe someone would kindly answer some of my concerns:
1. What safety measures will be put in place to protect the children when walking to and from school each day through this very long, unlit, unsupervised and uneven track? With no houses along the route and being unseen by passers-by and the general public, they will be vulnerable.
2. What allowance for street lighting will be made as returning from school in the winter months will be in the dark, particularly for the children taking part in after-school activities?
3. What provision for surveillance (of any kind) will be put in place to keep our children safe while walking through this track?
4. What access provision is being made for the emergency services through this narrow track?
5. What provision is being made for the depositing and collection of rubbish? Waste bins would need to be installed along the route and regularly emptied. It is in the best interest of our island to keep this green area litter free.
Living Streets chairman John Gollop is reported as saying 'Young people deserve the opportunity to walk through the attractive natural environment' but I would hope the general public would agree it is more important the children have a safe environment to travel to and from school.
S. OZANNE (Mrs). |
Anon
Guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 10, 2009 - 11:58 am: | |
I CANNOT believe that there is talk, once again, of closing two schools. I do wonder if those deputies who want that to happen have the remotest idea that, in the case of St Andrew's, it is not just a school but the centre of the community. If the school closed, apart from the church, there would be nothing.
The primary school children are the generation who will care for Guernsey in the future, and their care is vital, and the care they get in that school is the best. If money needs to be saved, would it not be possible for high-earning parents to contribute in some way to the cost of their children's education at senior level? Either that, or a scheme where high earners help support less privileged children.
I expect that to be a very contentious issue, but perhaps worth considering, as there are many high-earning families whose children go through the State system, and that includes the colleges, as of course is their right.
Name and address withheld,
med@cwgsy.net. |
Name and address withheld.
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 10, 2009 - 12:17 pm: | |
HI THERE. I’m a student, who goes to La Mare High. I just read your article about La Mare building new huts. The first thing that made me laugh in the article was the statement, ‘Teachers say these are as good as classrooms in a proper building.’
Ahem, no, they are certainly not. They installed new huts at the school last term, which are still not complete. Here are a few points
explaining why.
1. One of the huts has not been fully painted. On the front of the ‘classroom’ there is a naff-looking orange patch that has not been painted with the naff-looking brown paint on the other huts.
2. The huts are absolutely freezing. A fellow student asked my teacher if she could turn the radiator on, to which she replied, ‘You’ll warm up in a bit.’
3. The huts are not even furnished properly. We have tiny little chairs (smaller than the width of my laptop, for comparison). The chairs in my primary school are actually bigger than the ones in the huts.
So, there it is, a little ‘inside’ knowledge from a La Mare student. |
Holly Jane Dowlen
Guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 - 03:50 pm: | |
THE youngster's effort on page five of the Design-an-Ad supplement (Guernsey Press, 15 July) may have been an advert for Specsavers, but it was certainly no advert for her grammar teacher at St Martin's Primary School.
Should of gone to Specsavers? Should have been taught properly, more like. Dismal.
HOLLY JANE DOWLEN (Miss) |
Deborah Lawson
Guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 23, 2009 - 03:56 pm: | |
I WRITE in response to the letter recently published supporting the 11-plus system.
Although I feel that the arguments put forward were seriously flawed and not a little naive, at least it has helped to open up a debate on this contentious issue.
If the 11-plus selection process resulted in all our 'brighter' children being selected to attend the Grammar School and colleges, how simple and straightforward life would be.
The truth is, as many teachers and parents will verify, of the number of children who are selected, a similar number again who are not would also cope in a grammar school or college environment.
The fact is there are only a certain number of places on offer, so the
11-plus guillotine has to drop somewhere. Hence we wait helplessly to discover whether our child is 'in' or 'out'.
If the education system is continually evolving to benefit our communities, then so should the political system.
When I was a young girl, if someone failed the 11-plus it was generally assumed (unless their parents had the means to place them in the private sector) that they wouldn't be studying for
A-levels or attending university. Thank goodness those days are gone and that steps are now in place for all our secondary school children to take GCSEs and go on to further study.
Speaking from personal experience, it took me years to adjust from leaving a primary school, where I was generally placed around the top of the class/set, to then attend the Grammar School where we were all considered to be of a similar academic ability.
Even the colleges are 'mixed ability' schools - is that an environment where the 'brightest' are 'held back'?
I do appreciate that no system is ever going to be perfect but that shouldn't stop us from continuing to make it as just and as fair as possible for all our children.
As parents, what concerns us the most about this issue isn't whether or not our children fail the 11-plus, but much more importantly, whether or not the States system is failing our children.
DEBORAH LAWSON |
Anon
Guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 04, 2009 - 04:08 pm: | |
IN RESPONSE to Paul Langlois' letter, 'Let's rid the island of archaic 11-plus system', on Friday 22 May, I would like to say it is bold to say children suffer 'deep gloom' if they do not 'pass' the 11-plus.
A child would suffer such an emotion only if they have learnt that not being selected to the Grammar School or colleges is to have 'failed'. This, needless to say, is wrong.
The 11-plus is, I believe, not a test which you can 'pass' or 'fail'.
It is simply an effective way of deciding which school is suitable for a child's ability at that age and where they will have the best opportunity to fulfil their potential.
If this is what the 11-plus was known as, children would not have a reason for disappointment and would therefore not have to suffer the stress they supposedly do.
Perhaps Mr Langlois should explain to his son that he cannot 'fail' the 11-plus, it will just decide which school he will do best at.
Naturally, if a child wishes to get to a certain school, there will be some disappointment if they don't.
Speaking as a student, I can say that I will be disappointed if I don't get into my first choice of university in September, yet disappointment is a very natural part of life and I will not feel I have 'failed'.
At the age of 11, not getting to a certain school was not a great concern as it was never conveyed to me as one. If anything, at 18 years old I am more aware of not getting to the university I want to.
However I certainly do not believe the A-level system should be stopped simply because I might feel I have 'failed' if I don't get where I want to.
Taking away the opportunity of scholarships to the colleges is, in effect, saying you cannot go to the school where you will do best, because it isn't 'fair' on those who haven't got there, unless you can pay. Is that offering good education?
It is true children develop at different rates, and so there have to be colleges that offer a faster-paced education with a heavier workload for those who are capable of it at 11 years old, and not at a fee.
If not, that is depriving children of reaching their full potential.
Those who develop later have the opportunity to attend the Grammar School Sixth Form Centre.
All the schools on the island are excellent because they each cater for certain abilities.
One school that attempts to cater for all abilities would not be as effective. Only one syllabus could be taught, and in order to cater for every ability in the class, there would have to be a compromise.
Either those at a more advanced level in Year 7 would be held back and not given the opportunity to reach their full potential, or those of a lesser ability would be pushed so hard they would not enjoy school. Is this right?
Finally, Mr Langlois' statement that close friendships are lost if friends attend different schools is hardly true in every case.
I still have friendships with many people from my primary school, who went to different secondary schools, for the exact reason he gave.
They had been engendered over the last seven, or more, years and were strong enough to survive it.
Name and address withheld. |
F. M. De Jersey
Guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 03, 2009 - 02:05 pm: | |
CAN Mr Jarrald guarantee that no children of wealthy parents attend States schools where they are totally funded by the taxpayers?
Perhaps this should also be stopped.
F. M. DE JERSEY (Miss). |
Paul Jarrald
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 01, 2009 - 02:49 pm: | |
CAN anybody tell me why some of my tax contribution is used to subsidise sending the children of wealthy parents to the colleges?
Contributions from the States to university student funding is means-tested, so why aren't the subsidies given via college scholarships to successful 11-plus applicants? Irrespective of the bigger picture regarding the future of the 11-plus this is something that could and should be introduced quickly - we are, after all, told that the States is looking for all sensible economies it can make.
The current funding arrangement is one of which the Sheriff of Nottingham would approve. If we're going to have any subsidies at all I'd prefer them to be more in the style of Robin Hood, where contributions from the general taxpayer are directed to the less well off.
Let's face it, there are some better-off families in Guernsey who regard the 11-plus as a great idea purely because it gives them an option for getting their children free admission to the colleges. But if their children 'fail' then they can pay a fee (also subsidised) for them to attend. I think it's a bit hypocritical to voice support for the current system but never be willing to send your children to a secondary school.
Moving onto the 11-plus issue in general: the only rationale for retaining the system should be on educational grounds. The case for the 11-plus seems to rest on the proposition that children learn at different rates, and therefore they need to be segregated into different schools.
The concept of sets based on capabilities in specific subjects is used in many secondary schools (including Elizabeth College) and universities, and works very well within a single institution - the argument for entirely segregated schools is difficult to accept.
Setting by subject allows for the fact that some children may be brilliant at maths and physics, but less strong in English and history.
There is another flaw in the segregated schools argument: why does it apply only to one specific age group, namely 11- to 15-year-olds? What happens to children's developmental capabilities during those years only, that makes separate schools a necessity? I've not heard the argument extended, for instance to primary schools - everyone seems to get along OK, despite them being managed on a non-selective basis.
And, of course, around half of the students in the Sixth Form Centre at the Grammar School were 11-plus 'failures', and yet suddenly at the age of 16 it's OK to teach them alongside their peers again.
I can't see the educational logic, so I have to think there is something else going on here. It seems to me that the real reason for retaining the 11-plus locally is to provide some veneer for justifying us continuing to spend millions of pounds of public money each year to help fund private education establishments.
It is this point we should really be debating.
PAUL JARRALD,
paul@j arrald.net |
Paul Langlois
Guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 22, 2009 - 02:16 pm: | |
I TOOK my nine-year-old son into school on Monday morning and witnessed the consequences of the 11-plus results, which came out on Saturday.
As you can imagine, there was a range of emotions in the playground from that of delight (from those who ‘passed’) to that of deep gloom (from some who ‘failed’). Already showing was the division that inevitably occurs between those who have got into different schools.
Once homogenous classes will now be driven between those going to the so-called ‘better’ schools and those going to the ‘other’ schools. This will last until the end of term when friendships, which have been engendered over the last seven or more years, will be lost (possibly for good).
I experienced similar events 35 years ago and it has been happening every year since then.
Having recently returned to the island after 20 years away, I am still aware of this divide, (the stigma of the 11-plus), the ‘which school did you go to?’ question.
The pro 11-plus lobby are perpetuating this anachronistic process for ‘selecting’ children to follow an educational path at such a young and vulnerable age.
Of course many break out of it, go to the Sixth Form College and on to university or do well in other fields, but they succeed despite the education system, not because of it. But in any case, why put children through the trauma in the first place?
It was lamentable to hear Alistair Langlois’s (no relation) response on Sunday’s phone-in.
He concluded that children develop at different rates and therefore should go to different schools to suit their needs.
Why a different school with all the issues I mentioned above? Is that what the teachers think? Is that what the majority of the Education Department think? I doubt it.
I won’t dwell here on the reasons why some may want to keep the 11-plus, i.e. to maintain the subsidies to the colleges or to ‘keep with tradition/if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. Others may want it for purely selfish reasons. They can afford to get extra tuition for their children in the hope they can get into college for free.
If they don’t ‘pass’ they pay reduced fees because of the States’ subsidies, a win/win situation. Suffice to say it isn’t for educational reasons.
All are aware of the private tuition that goes on to ensure some children have the best possible chance of ‘passing’.
Certainly in my day, and I am sure it is still true now, some schools are more geared up in ‘preparing’ their children for the exam. The exam certainly isn’t taken on a level playing field and it certainly isn’t natural selection.
I am sure nothing will change the minds of some on this matter, however, it is an increasingly isolated stance.
Hopefully when the matter comes before the States again in the near future those voting will have dragged themselves into the 21st century and vote against this archaic approach to education and our children.
In the meantime, how should I respond to my son when recently he asked me ‘What happens if I fail my 11-plus?’ |
Martin Gibbons
Guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 03:12 pm: | |
I REFER to the article on Mont Varouf School in the Guernsey Press of 23 April. The article referred to the site as dilapidated and I believe that this point is worthy of further comment.
Several of the buildings on site are indeed in a very sad state of disrepair as a result of neglect over many years. However, a member of the douzaine explained to visitors, prior to their tour of the premises, that these buildings are to be demolished and removed by the States. These neglected buildings are the swimming pool, the temporary classrooms on the eastern boundary of the school and the temporary classroom abutting the eastern end of the swimming pool. What will be left are the original granite school building and the 1990 hall. It is important for readers to appreciate that it is these two buildings which campaigners are trying to ensure are saved for the community. These two buildings are most definitely not dilapidated. The hall is a modern building of cavity construction and is in excellent condition. Any community would be proud to have such a facility as a village hall. The old school is a granite building. It is generally in good condition but requires a degree of remodelling to make it less of a rabbit warren, redecorating throughout and a programme of refurbishment.
I hope that the many visitors to the school on 18 April will have been able to see that the hall, the old school and the grounds are a priceless parish asset. With a little imagination and the support/involvement of parishioners, it could become a much-needed community centre.
It is also important that readers should be aware that the campaign to save Mont Varouf School intends that refurbishment and the operation of a community centre would be paid for entirely independently of the parish rates.
From a financial perspective, the community centre would stand on its own feet and pay its way so there would be no effect whatever on parish rates.
MARTIN GIBBONS,
Chairman,
Campaign to Save Mont Varouf School.
Campaign email: ssph@cwgsy.net. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
