Cutting spending at a (back) stroke

Do our schools need swimming pools?
 
Or to put it another way, should it be up to the schools to teach our children to swim?
 
Have you noticed the underlying assumption?
 
Swimming pools are not just about teaching a potentially life saving skill, they are also there as an alternative form of exercise which the kids might actually enjoy. A form of exercise which we should be encouraging if we’re concerned about rising child obesity or having healthy and fit kids.
 
But a swimming pool is an expensive piece of kit and clearly closing the pools looks as if it is going to save money. It’s an easy option and I’m surprised it hasn’t been thought of before.
 
But is it more important to save money in this way than to go for some of the fruit a bit higher up the tree?
 
How about considering some other options?
 
I’ve heard that Education staff have a perk of free uni education for their offspring. I can’t believe that such a thing still exists but if true then it should be stopped immediately. Why should one set of individuals have this benefit just because they happen to work in a particular department? The accumulated savings must be worthwhile.
 
Then there’s the Schools Music Service which runs at a cost of some £600k per year. It does provide the basis for a very high level of musical talent on this Island but does it really need to be free? 

Why not means test it?
 
Doesn’t have to be an administrative nightmare. If you want your child to attend, then exhibit your tax coding notice to prove level of income and pay accordingly. If you’re worried about social exclusion then have a free band up to a set level and charge those earning more.
 
What about re-examining the scholarships which are provided each year to allow pupils to attend the colleges. Why aren’t these means tested?
 
Regularly we see children moved back into the state system for the run up to the 11+ in the hope that young Johnny can save the family a few thousand by flying through his exams and getting a free place. This is an obvious abuse of the system and one which can easily be stopped by means testing.
 
These scholarships were set up at a time when it was thought that the colleges provided the best education on the Island and that the bright children of poor families shouldn’t be excluded just because they couldn’t afford the cost.
 
The world has changed.
 
Some might still argue for these scholarships but there is no reason for them not to be means tested.
 
Talking of private education, isn’t it about time to stop giving the colleges financial support? I know the argument is that it would cost the States more overall as so many children would have to revert to states schools, their families unable to pay the higher fees a cut of subsidy would inevitably entail, but so what?
 
I suspect the flood would only be a trickle and I can only see an upside of more potentially influential people actually having a vested interest in the quality of education in our States schools. 

Especially the sort of people who want a better quality of education for their kids and are prepared to do something about it.
 
Either these private colleges provide a better education or they do not (and this should be measured by a pupil’s relative progress and not by who gets the most exam passes). If the relative progress in the colleges is better than in the states system, then Education should model this successful formula into all of our schools or improve the quality of education in the states sector until it achieved the same end result. That is after all their basic job; to provide every child with a good education.
 
If our Education department are doing their job and the states sector does match up on relative progress rates, then why are we subsidising the colleges? Education either need to make a sound factual argument for maintaining the scholarships and subsidies or else scrap them.
 
Make that argument to the States and take it to a vote. Oh, and by the way, exclude from voting all those deputies with a vested interest in supporting the colleges. All those who are, or seeking to be, on their boards of governors, all the old boys and girls, and all those with immediate family links including grandchildren at these schools. Maybe then we might have a fair and unbiased vote based on facts and logic.

There used to be a time, in the real world at least,  when those with a potential vested interest in the outcome of a particular decision would exclude themselves from the debate, or at least declare their interest, fight for their corner, and then withdraw before the vote.

I am sure that our political representatives are still equally honourable but they need to be seen to hold these moral standards and exclusion from the vote does seem the most transparent solution.
 
Sadly I can’t see any of these money saving suggestions seeing the light of day.
 
Too many vested interests.
 
Better to close a few swimming pools and upset those who really don’t matter too much.