Is there something we're missing?

Is the whole secondary school reorganisation is being used as a cover for a land grab?
 
For many years Les Varrendes has successfully housed an 11-16 school and a 6th form centre taking pupils from all of our Secondaries without any obvious complaints. It is the best of the sites available with reasonable parking, good access, and custom build facilities. But none of this matters.
 
ESC tell us that there is widespread political, business, and public support for the new Gsy Institute. Really?
 
This Institute was created last year as the new hub for post 16 education. It is an amalgamation of three separate organisations being The Institute of Health and Social Studies (run by Health out of their PEH site and responsible for training working health professionals), The Gsy Training Agency (a private firm I believe training working professionals from the business community using various sites) and the College of FE, the Cinderella service ignored or underfunded by many ESC committees.
 
But now Cinderella will go to the ball, even if it is as a fig leaf to cover up this apparent land grab.
 
Powerful interests seemingly want Les Varrendes for this new organisation and to further the quest to create a Gsy university.
 
Does the Guernsey public want one? 

Doesn’t matter. It’s true there is a lot of support for the College of FE to have better facilities but the other organisations can look after themselves. Who better to oversee health training than Health and why does the rich business sector need public assets to run its training? Both have successfully run for many years without ESC involvement so why change now? Let them look after themselves.
 
Even Eugene’s one eyed donkey has worked out that the best solution to the secondary school problem is to have three independent 11-16 schools )based at Les Beaucamps, St Sampsons, and Les Varrendes) with an independent 6th form centre based at Les Varrendes. Simple to organise, economic, and without major disruptions to the rest of the Island.
 
With that out of the way then build the College of FE something new at the St Peter Port school site to join the existing theatre facility they already run there. Yes, there will be temporary relocation problems but they are solvable if there is a will to do so.
 
And there’s the rub. ESC do not have this will. They seem to actively want to remove Les Varrendes as a secondary school because perhaps it garners them a lot of support from powerful interests and it also avoids the embarrassment of watching that school’s results fall back to the (relatively low) Island average. This isn’t pro-selection propaganda but just a logical conclusion. Spread the number of high performers away from Les Varrendes and of course their results will take a hit. 

This can be mitigated but that would mean ESC addressing the many issues that have kept secondary results low for so long and I doubt they have the capacity or know-how to do so.
 
Better to let the problem be lost in the fog of a major reorganisation and the merge of everything into one school over two or maybe three sites. One school, one set of results to be published and nobody has the information to criticise the performance of the individual schools.
 
Will anyone stop this apparent land grab?
 
I doubt it. Too many influential people want to see it go through and the small matter of our children's education doesn't seem to factor too highly in the great scheme of things.

A Three School Solution

The stated aim of the current ESC is to achieve equality across our secondary schools following the removal of selection. This in itself is a commendable idea provided it means an equality of opportunity whilst allowing each individual school to excel without fear of breaking away from the norm.
 
To achieve this aim of equality ESC objects to a proposed 3 school system involving Les Varrendes as it would maintain an 11-18 school whilst the others would still only be 11-16.
 
To explore this concern I propose a small experiment.
 
What if the 6th form building was already located (say) near the airport. Would this make a three school solution acceptable as it maintained equality over the three secondary school sites? It would make sense to keep using a purpose built 6th form facility which was entirely fit for use and would keep the costs of the project down, itself a good thing.
 
So now let’s move this theoretical location to the old St Peter Port school site. Still acceptable?
 
If so then what is the problem with leaving it where it is, making it independent of the school next door, and continue using it for the purpose originally intended?
 
There is an argument that somehow Les Varrendes would attract better teachers as they could teach up to A level standard. So why not staff the 6th form college on a part time basis from each of the 3 secondary schools with specialist teachers each spending one day a week at the college. No one school then has all of the “better” teachers.
 
Then there is the idea that teaching A levels automatically makes you a better teacher which is frankly laughable. All secondary teachers should be specialist trained for their subject and as such able to teach across the age range without affecting their ability to be effective.
 
Maybe not automatically having this opportunity will make recruiting more difficult. I don’t know if this is a real problem as such but if the overall package of being a teacher in Guernsey is attractive enough then it is a problem which can be easily overcome.
 
Another foreseen problem is that not all schools will be able to resource the same breadth of subjects offered at GCSE level due either to a lack of staff or pupils wanting to take that subject.
Staffing issues can be easily overcome by making the relevant teachers peripatetic (working across the three sites). It works for specialist music staff so why not for others?
 
Perhaps ESC also need to decide what subjects our schools should be offering in the light of uptake and university requirements for the more mainstream subjects. We are a small island with a small school system. We cannot offer everything but equally should not be too restrictive. I know that the current UK government want to drift away from Humanities and the Arts in favour of STEM subjects but this is short sighted, especially when the UK has one of the most economically productive arts sectors in the developed world.
 
Let every subject be considered on its merits and then let a decision be reached (in liaison with our teachers) on what we can afford to offer.
 
As to pupil uptake, there will always be an imbalance whatever system you choose. But is this not an opportunity to have some smaller class sizes? This introduces a degree of inequality across the schools but that is always going to be the case. No two schools will ever have exactly the same number of pupils in each class unless by chance. This is just a fact we must accept.
 
It would seem that all of the objections can be dealt with without spending vast amounts of money or embarking on huge disruptive building projects.
 
I know there is a desire by some to group all post 16 teaching into the one school but is this the way forward? We have always split between Academic and Vocational training and in itself this is not a problem. Where Guernsey (and the UK) have gone wrong is in not regarding both sectors of equal value. If we have an Academic 6th form college then we do need an equivalent for Vocational training.
Sadly their current facilities have been allowed to deteriorate to the point where they are barely fit for purpose.
 
As an aside and as a matter of urgency, ESC need to create a properly funded program of maintenance for all school premises. In fact, why doesn’t the States already have a department tasked with maintaining all States property? Education’s speciality should be education not property maintenance and development.
 
But back to vocational training.
 
Having made a case for a cost effective 3 school solution plus one college, all using existing sites, we now need to find a suitable home for vocational training.
 
Perhaps here we do need a new build and the old St Peter Port school site seems the best contender for location. It would mean moving the existing vocational students off site temporarily and this is a disruption but not nearly as big a one as the ESC’s current plans for secondary schools would entail.
 
By making minimal changes to the secondary system, resources are now released towards this new area of development. By moving to three schools, La Mare Secondary becomes available for vocational training. It is very far from ideal but it is temporary and would not happen until a new build had been agreed and contracted.
 
I’m sure they would love to use Les Varrendes or the existing 6th form centre as a base of operation but neither are for sale. The island’s education system needs both sites to continue to do what they have done for years.
 
I know there have been rumours of other parties keen to move premises to Les Varrendes site but isn’t it better to retain the buildings for the purpose for which they were designed? If the site is so tempting for outside organisations then perhaps ESC are currently undervaluing its advantages.
 
So, and in conclusion, sort out the 11-16 system by adopting a four school solution. Three 11-16 schools (Les Varrendes, St Sampson, and Beaucamp) and one 6th form centre. Minimal disruption and minimal cost.
 
Then move onto the next issue and plan a proper vocational system based on one site and with new facilities. If there was money available to push forward all of the building to make a 2 school solution fit then it can now be spent where it is actually needed.
 
If this is not a better way forward then what is?
 
Now is the time to bring all proposals to the fore and to have an open and informed discussion as to their merits or otherwise. Sadly the actions of the current ESC and their department has lost them the support of most of the teaching profession and (it seems) a lot of the general public. To bring back some form of trust ESC and the department now need to be open, transparent, and honest in all future dealings in this matter. Whether they can make such a sea change remains to be seem but they do need to recognise that what they’ve been doing to date isn’t working and to keep on doing the same thing whilst expecting a different result is madness. That’s Einstein’s viewpoint anyway.
 
My own closing thought is that if super schools really are the best way forward to attain ESC’s aspiration to provide a world class education system then why hasn’t the idea been adopted by Eton, Harrow, or Winchester? Don’t they want to maintain their world class reputation? Or is it that really large schools isn’t in fact the best way forward, merely the cheapest option.

Radiators

“We want radiators not drains”

What a phrase. It could come straight out of the David Brent School of Management. 

On the surface it seems clever and thoughtful but scratch that thin veneer and what lies beneath? What is it trying to say?
 
We want optimists, not pessimists.
 
There’s many a self development book which counsels you to remove from your life all those who are dragging you down and draining your spirits. Not altogether bad advice for an individual but only if they are level headed enough not to misidentify cautionary warnings as pessimistic doom peddling.
 
But for a manager to wish to be surrounded only by optimists is courting catastrophe. A good manager wants people who are willing to speak truth to power, who are willing to think for themselves and who are vested enough in the future of their organisation to argue when poor decisions are put forward.
 
A good manager takes a collegiate approach and actively wants contra opinions. Any good idea will stand up to stress testing and will emerge a better idea for it.
 
It is well understood in business that any course of action can only be fully and successfully implemented if it has the buy-in of the workforce and the best way to do that is to involve them in the decision process. If you’ve fed and trained the dog then you’re going to be cheering for it in the fight.
 
However, if you are just told that this thin whippet will be the best in the ring and its failure will be down to you for being so negative then one might understand anybody for having misgivings as to the competency of the head trainer.
 
Sadly some managers see their role as the sole innovator of good ideas and their mission being to impose their vision on the workforce who must obey without question. They actively surround themselves with like minded people who bolster their viewpoint which can end up creating a bunker like mentality where it becomes them against the world.
 
Once this point is reached, the game is over and failure is just a matter of time. The ancient saying that a fish rots from the head down has stood the test of time for a reason.
 
In defence of the Radiator phrase one might point to an equally old saying that one bad apple can spoil the barrel. Yes, misery is contagious and it does love company. Someone who is continually downbeat and actively pessimistic no matter the circumstances would be a drain on any team. Such a person needs to be sensitively counselled to take a look at themselves, their attitude and their effect on their co-workers. To be so downbeat suggests a wider problem than mere attitude and at best a deep unhappiness with their current job.
 
However, when as a manager the majority of your team honestly disagree with your idea and can offer a reasoned argument against it, then perhaps it is you who needs a rethink not only about your idea but also about your whole approach to management.
 
Of course I do not know the circumstances in which this phrase has been trotted out, seeming several times, but from reports it doesn’t seem to have been well received either by the recipients or by the wider audience.
 
If there is to be a positive way forward then fences need to be mended and attitudes changed both at the school level and much higher where a similar situation seems to have developed of a boss surrounding themselves with like minded people.
 
Will such changes be forthcoming?
 
Recent history suggests not but perhaps this is just me being a Drain. 

We will see.

Too many cooks

Any good cook knows that the basis for a great meal is great ingredients. That’s why the best local restaurants use the best local produce.
 
It’s the same with anything. If you’re trying to build something of quality then you get the best raw materials.
 
If you’re a business, you want the best people for the job. You recruit the best and you promote the best. So, if someone comes along and tells you that your recruiting process is fundamentally flawed then you’d better sort it out quickly if you want to keep your business thriving.
 
Then we have Guernsey’s Education Department.
 
A department so wise and knowing that it took an independent report to get through to them what working teachers already knew. 
 
Your recruitment system is fundamentally flawed.
 
What does this mean in practice?
 
Let's take a look.
 
I’m a newly qualified teacher eager to earn some money after years of student life and part time jobs. I want to come back to Guernsey and hopefully put my training to good use and help repay my debt to society given that the Island has spent a fair amount of money on training me in the UK.
 
But there’s a problem.
 
Guernsey doesn’t recruit new teachers until June, by which time the UK has finished it’s similar exercise for jobs starting in the September.
 
Can I afford to pass up the opportunity of a much needed job if something suitable comes up in the UK on the hope that a similar job might come up in Guernsey this year and that I might be shortlisted for that job and I might actually get the job?
 
Too many mights!
 
The odds are somewhat stacked against this happening and I can’t afford to take such a chance. Maybe I’ll come back to the Island once I’ve got a few years experience under my belt.
 
Maybe.
 
Why does our Education department leave it so late?
 
A good question.
 
Maybe it’s such a great system that we don’t need to change.
 
Lets have a look at how it’s worked this year.
 
About 27 vacancies to fill and a whole raft of applicants whittled down to a shortlist of 30 or so.
 
These lucky few then go through an interview process, have references checked etc, and give an example lesson to a real class with a few professionals watching. In short a proper assessment which each candidate should fly through given the rigorous shortlisting process.
 
Sounds like a pretty good system.
 
Except that it didn’t work.
 
Of the lucky 30, a number fell at the assessment stage and some when their references were properly checked, leaving a few unfortunate schools with no full time teacher to put in front of a class come September.
 
This was the position with three weeks to go before the end of the school year.
 
It’s also worth bearing in mind that the only UK applicants we will have seen are those who failed to find a job in the UK this time around and/or those who are desperate to leave the UK system. Not perhaps the best tranche to chose from?
 
Then there’s the problem of centralised control.
 
You’d think that if a school has a vacancy then the Head would interview suitable applicants and then offer the best person the job.
 
Not in Guernsey at this time of year. Central Headquarters must keep the whip hand.
 
Everyone goes into a Pool and the Heads then have to meet and horse-trade to try and fill their vacancies. You might have three Heads fighting over the same candidate but it is HQ who decides. So, the candidate  might end up being offered a job at a school they didn’t actually want to work at because the Head of their favoured school has lost out in the process. Neither get their first choice and neither are entirely happy.
 
Is that any way to run a system?
 
Of course not.

Junk

Someone’s come up with the idea of building a Chinese Junk to promote Guernsey.
 
Hang, that must have been a good party!
 
You can imagine the conversation.
 
“We need something that says Guernsey.”
 
“Tradition.”
 
“Ship building! That used to be really big here a while back.”
 
“But we need to think commercial as well. Where’s the biggest market for visitors?”
 
“China of course.”
 
You can see how the conversation degenerated from there can’t you.
 
For the hard of thinking, here’s a news flash.
 
Chinese people aren’t that interested in junks just as Dutch people aren’t that interested in canals and windmills. They can see that sort of stuff at home and don’t need to travel to a small obscure Island for the privilege.
 
“But it’s going to be built by this well known Chinese artist.”
 
A Chinese born artist who has lived in New York since 1995 and who is hardly a household name outside of the rarified atmosphere of contemporary art.
 
“But it will sail all over the place taking the name of Guernsey with it.”
 
This idea should be a non-starter but of course in the cosy closed world of Guernsey Arts it’s easy to find traction for such whimsy especially given the potential for exploratory talks, investigative visits, and grandstanding to the Press.
 
Does Guernsey need this junk?
 
No.
 
“But think of all the free publicity we got with Gormley’s statues and Goldsworthy’s balls.”
 
And how much revenue did this “free exposure” generate for Guernsey? I seem to forget the hordes of art lovers flocking off of the planes and boats panting for the sight of these art treasures.
 
You could hire a blimp to drag a banner over Central London saying “I love Guernsey” and get it seen by hundreds of thousands. Doesn’t mean a single one of them will come visit us.
 
But what about the other idea? Making the old slaughterhouse into a contemporary arts gallery.
 
Does Guernsey need it?
 
No.
 
“But what about the Bilbao effect?”, the regeneration of an area because a famous museum set up there.
 
The hint’s in the word famous.
 
Who’s going to travel to Guernsey to see a third rate and frankly tiny museum? We are not Bilbao, or St Ives, or even Margate.
 
“But we  can exhibit local artists as well.”
 
Ah, the fig leaf of community participation. The leaf that the Arts Commission uses so well to justify their existence. “Arts Sunday”, “Art on the Beach”, missionary trips into the estate jungles to bring the natives paint and lanterns.
 
Here’s another news flash.
 
None of it is needed and none of it is necessary. It’s nice and generates a few good photo opportunities but the money could be better spent elsewhere.
 
Art, in all of it’s many forms, exists and thrives on this Island without the interference of the Arts Commission.
 
People will paint, dance, act, or make music because they want to, because they need to, and they will do it no matter what. They don’t need organising by an expensive Commission with it’s own agenda.
 
If we needed a contemporary arts gallery, then we would already have one. The wave of public opinion would have overwhelmed any resistance.
 
The slaughterhouse could make a great intimate theatre space to replace that lost to Youth Theatre when their old home got redeveloped by the States into housing. Their new States allocated space really isn’t the same and we have lost an outlet for good contemporary theatre using talented local artists. Maybe also use such a new theatre for other arts events. Maybe even for gigs by local bands on some nights?
 
Then there’s the Sea Cadets needing a new home as well. 

Something a short walk away from the slipway would be ideal.
 
Or maybe we could do with a proper local market space for home producers with good nearby parking.
 
All good ideas and none considered before this project was allowed the go ahead.
 
Ah, the good old Guernsey way.
 
It’s not what you know but who you know and what you know about those in the know.
 
Not much scope for overseas jollies from the Sea Cadets is there?
 
It’s a shame that such a potentially iconic site will be squandered on something with such little scope for real local participation by the wider community.
 
You might see a fig leaf flapping but this isn’t about local community. It’s about a privileged few pursuing their individual interests and other potential good uses for this space can go hang.
 
Maybe I’m wrong.
 
Maybe we need a man of vision with a passion.
 
Build it and they will come.
 
Maybe.

Islamic Guernsey

So often we look across to the UK and give thanks for that stretch of water and the quirks of history.
 
There but for the grace of God go we.
 
And it’s that grace which is causing a lot of fuss at the moment with some Birmingham schools changing their Ofsted rating from Excellent to Inadequate in barely a year.
 
At the root of the problem is a number of schools with an overwhelming majority of Muslim pupils promoting an Islamic agenda which is now deemed unacceptable in a state school.
 
Prayers during the school day, imams invited in to speak to the children, lessons where they are taught and encouraged in the tenets of their religion.
 
Thank goodness we don’t have that sort of thing going on here.
 
Except that we do.
 
Just change Islamic to Catholic and Imam to Priest and welcome to Guernsey.
 
But let’s not highlight just the Catholic schools. Every school in Guernsey is legally obliged to hold a Christian based assembly and every school promotes Christian values.
 
All of this despite the fact that the majority of people on this Island are only nominally Christian and rarely if ever attend church.
 
Despite not believing ourselves, we seem quite happy to let our children be taught a doctrine which is purely faith based and has no evidence to back it. At least those parents in Birmingham believed what their kids were being taught.
 
Don’t get me wrong, I have a lot of time for the teaching of most Christian Values. I just object to one religion co-opting the values of any civilised society and taking the credit for them.
 
Children should be taught how to live in our society and how to be good human beings. It just doesn’t need to come wrapped up in a ball of mysticism carrying baggage which not even the majority of believers believe.
 
If you do follow a religion and wish the same for your children then teach them by example and at home or in your church. Leave schools to teach skills and not beliefs.
 
Of course, if we turn our heads in another direction we can see a secular system which has been practised for some time by our Gallic neighbours. Unfortunately they too seem to be getting into trouble by an overly rigid interpretation of their rules which have not adapted to the changes in their society.
 
In the land of high fashion, France has got itself into a knot over dress.
 
Put simply, how far can you acknowledge your religion in the way you dress and behave?
 
If Guernsey schools did go secular, would we allow Muslim teachers to wear a headscarf? Sikhs to wear turbans? Christians to wear crosses?
 
Why not?
 
As long as it doesn’t interfere with their ability to teach and as long as they don’t seek to impose their religion on their pupils then what’s the problem?
 
Of course, I put this as a rhetorical question. Guernsey’s educational system will not go secular nor will it seek to curb the existing faith schools.
 
We’re far too happy pointing out the mote in our neighbours eye.

A Liberation Day Message

In a parallel universe, somewhere very similar to here, an Island very like ours is celebrating their Liberation.

On this day, on this Island, their two most important politicians speak to their fellow Islanders.

This is one of those speeches.

"On this 69th anniversary of Guernsey's Liberation I am pleased to stand here as your Minister for Education representing all of those in our service committed to the future of the Island.

Our children are our future and it is the responsibility of all of us to see that they grow up as citizens we can be proud of, in an Island they can be proud of.
 
Our responsibility.
 
Not just parents, not just teachers, all of us.
 
We are the ones who have control of the environment in which they will grow up. The home, the school, the community; all are important and all need to reflect the values which we wish to instil into our children for the day when they in turn become parents.
 
The Department, which I stand here to represent, is full of hard working individuals who are committed to the ideal of Education. 

The provision of knowledge and life skills to those growing up within our Island community to equip them for a life which we can only dream about.
 
The wider society advances at a pace barely believable to those who stood here to welcome our liberating forces all those years ago and the technology we now take as everyday would border on the magical for them.
 
We recognise that we cannot train our children for a future we cannot yet discern but we will do our very best to create fully rounded individuals with the skills to adapt to changes in our community, our economy, and the wider world. Not only to adapt to change but to be promoters of such change for the betterment of their fellow Islanders.
 
But the job does not just rest on our shoulders. Those of you who are parents rightly bear the prime responsibility for bringing up your children to be sons and daughters you can be proud to call your own.
 
It is you who prepare your children for education; it is you who instil into your children a value of learning; it is you who instil a respect for their teachers. It is you who then give us, for a short time, the responsibility for the formal education of your children.
 
As your Minister for Education it is my job to ensure that we are deserving of your trust and respect. My job to ensure that we have an education system fit for purpose with a band of professionals equipped with the best skill and knowledge to teach your children.
 
As Minister, I recognise that I am an amateur. I have not spent years training to teach, years keeping up with the latest developments in practical education, or years working in front of classes each and every day. It is to these professionals that I turn for support and knowledge of how to constantly improve our schools and system for the betterment of our Island.
 
Yes, I can bring in UK experts and yes, I can look to the rest of the world for best practise but it is my colleagues who will know how to adapt this best practise for Guernsey.
 
That is why we at the Department constantly consult our colleagues at the chalkface. They are the ones delivering an education to your children. They are the ones who we must support each and every day to ensure that they have the very best chance of doing what they do best. Teaching.
 
That is their prime responsibility. To teach.
 
It is not their responsibility to bring up your children.  It is not their responsibility to give them love and understanding and to sort out their sometimes chaotic home lives.  It is not their responsibility to pick up the slack when some parents can’t or can’t be bothered to do the very things that make them a proper parent.
 
The fact that our teachers willingly continue to cover these responsibilities on a daily basis is a cry of shame to our wider society. Shame that we have produced a community where the employee is valued over the parent, where child-minding is valued over education, and where self gratification is valued over self sacrifice for the benefit of the future generation.
 
We at Education cannot address these wider problems which need be the concern of the States and society as a whole. We merely do the best we can for the child put in front of us.
 
Maybe we need to work harder.
 
It is a constant criticism that teachers only work half a day.
 
It is true that our teachers only spend five and a half hours a day with your children. Less than 28 hours a week. What you don’t see is the other 28 hours plus a week which is spent preparing for those hours in front of your offspring to ensure that each receives a personalised education suitable for their needs at that particular time in their school year.
 
Teachers don’t just mark books in their so called spare time. They reflect on what each child has taken from that lesson and prepare to take that child further on their educational journey or to retrace their steps over old ground to ensure that the skills so far not taken on board are re-examined and practised until learned.
 
Our teachers cannot and should not work nearly sixty hours a week or a six or seven day week.  If anything we should be looking to reduce their workload. Reduce class sizes and give them the time needed to do their job to the best of their ability.
 
But to do this we need money. Money which is just not available at present. Or should I say, money which is available but which goes elsewhere in accordance with the priorities set by you via your political representatives.
 
I am committed to showing the taxpayers of Guernsey that we in the Education Department are doing the best that we can with what you provide to us. Making the most of resourses and working as efficiently as we can. 

As a Department we are not yet in that position but this is my commitment to you today.
 
If I can show this efficiency and you still want a better education system, then you are going to have to give me more money. It’s as simple as that.
 
I want an education system fit for the 21st century. Fit for educating our children so that they can take their place in our society and contribute to making Guernsey a better place to live. A system which is the envy of similar sized jurisdictions throughout the world.
 
In 1945 we were given back our freedom.  In 2014 I want to give our children the freedom of a free eduction which will benefit them for their lifetime. That is my commitment to you and to those who follow you.
 
An education for every child. An education which will allow every child to take advantage of the opportunities which will be presented to them regardless of their background or upbringing.
 
As citizens of the Island community which we celebrate today I call on each and every one of you to support these aims. To do all that you can to support our future generations.
 
If I may adapt the words of President Kennedy who said it better than I ever can.
 
“Ask not what your Island can do for you — ask what you can do for your Island.”

It is only with your committed support that we can achieve the aim of providing a first rate education for our children. Give us that support and help us to do the job.

Help me to stand here next year and report that we are on the way to becoming the society we aspire to being with an education system which is fast becoming the envy of all of our neighbours everywhere.

Happy Liberation Day. "


Maybe we can learn something from our parallel twin?

 

Childish daydreams or How not to make policy

If you’re a parent, I’m sure you’ve had more than one of those conversations where your child comes up with all of these wonderful plans for the family.
 
“Great idea, but how’s it going to work?”
 
Shrug.
 
“And how are we going to pay for it?”
 
Shrug.
 
That’s kids for you. Naturally creative and completely unbound by the realities of life. So sad that they have to grow up.
 
Well, here’s some good news.
 
They don’t have to grow up. They can just get a job with our wonderful Education Department and carry on making plans without worrying about implementation.
 
The latest wonder plan is, like a child’s scheme, based on an excellent idea.
 
All of the studies show that it makes sense to have Nursery Education in Guernsey. So much sense that we actually already have a huge amount of such education already taking place here; just not under the auspices of our Education Department.
 
Now they want to get involved.
 
They’re not sure exactly how just yet and they’re not sure who’s going to pay for it but they want it and 

“It’s a really really good idea Mum!”
 
It is a good idea, and it does make sense for Education to have some say and monitor the standards of Nursery Education in Guernsey but that doesn’t mean having to pay for it.
 
We hope that Environment monitor the state of restaurants over here but we don’t expect them to pick up the bill when we go out for a meal.
 
If Education want to improve the standard of Nursery Education then introduce a system of monitoring and some form of quality control. Maybe even copy Environment and have a five star system with a name and shame campaign.
 
It’s not difficult.
 
Lots of people already pay for Nursery Education because both parents work. Some work to make ends meet but a lot do so to support their lifestyle. The big house, the lovely holidays abroad, and the two big cars so necessary for family life on this Island.
 
Do such people need help to pay nursery bills?
 
Education seems to think so.
 
They also seem to think that it will be too expensive to means test this new provision and anyway, we don’t want to exclude anyone on the borderline if we do have any financial limit.
 
So, because we can’t be bothered to think of a way to make it work sensibly, we want to introduce it anyway and work out the details later when we realise what everyone else already knows. It’s going to cost too much and we can’t afford it.
 
Sorry, but this isn’t good enough.
 
If it’s worth doing then it’s worth doing well.
 
Go back and work it out properly.
 
Work out the details and most importantly of all, work out where the money is coming from and then bring it forward to the States for sensible debate.
 
As it stands we’re back to mere childish imaginings.
 
“It’s a great idea Dad. Can we do it please?”
 
Perhaps they hope that as it’s such a great idea, someone else will decide to pay for it.
 
Maybe I can help our States out here.
 
Let Education get involved with quality control but leave the payment of benefits to those who know how to do it properly.
 
Our Social Security department must already have a system for checking the income of those applying for benefits; presumably through some link to States Tax Office.
 
Means test Child Allowance and set the limit appropriately. If you qualify for Child Allowance then you also qualify for help with nursery costs and will get a voucher with your name and address on it which you can redeem at the nursery of your choice.
 
That way, both benefits are targeted at those who need the help and we don’t have to subsidise Jemima’s four by four.
 
It’s called joined up government.
 
I recommend it.

Flowers and Cars

 Why do some people pick wild flowers?
 
Can’t they see the benefits of leaving things alone or is the temptation just too much?
 
Guess it’s the same with paid parking. There’s all these temping revenues that are oh so easy to pluck and it will make everything so much better.
 
Guernsey doesn’t want and doesn’t need paid parking.
 
There is a minority in favour of the idea but they seems to be driven by a general hatred of cars or a concern for the welfare of the planet. They would prefer it if cars were de-invented but that’s not going to happen.
 
It would be nice if everyone used the buses but again that’s not going to happen. You might persuade commuters to use a proper park and ride scheme with free shuttle buses into Town to reduce congestion but that would need large out of town car parks and a willingness to do something properly for a change.
 
You cannot improve the bus service by crippling its competitor, the car. It doesn’t work like that unless you want to impose draconian laws. People just aren’t willing to forgo the convenience of the car for the unpredictability and inflexibility of the bus.
 
I know Environment won’t be too concerned about where all of this nice new revenue comes from, but who is this stealth tax going to hit? The wealthy won’t mind too much and the corporates don’t really care. It’s the ordinary folk who will bear the brunt as usual.
 
There’s an idea to tax private parking spaces as well but where will that end?
 
I know there’s lots who’d be happy to hit the occupants of Custard Castle but are they also happy to charge nurses and teachers to go to work? They’re civil servants as well you know.
 
Then there’s the tourists.
 
Guernsey has already lost a lot of its unique charm in the headlong rush to make it just like the UK. Just think how happy those few who still visit will be when they find out that they get charged for parking just like at home. That’ll make them really feel welcomed.
 
Maybe it’s just as well to keep the tourists out of Town because there won’t be to many shops for them to visit. If the Internet wasn’t bad enough, there’s now another reason not to pop into Town.
 
Yes, there are too many cars on the Island.
 
It’s because there are too many people on this Island. Cars don’t yet drive themselves and every family worth their salaries wants to have a car each just to add to the problem.
 
Guernsey wasn’t built to cope with the number of people now living here and we don’t have the space to create the infrastructure to support them.
 
We can’t do Bus Lanes, we can’t do Car Pool lanes, and we can’t even build an underground car park let alone a Tube system.
 
So, what’s the answer?
 
I don’t know.
 
Maybe some form of decent population control but they seem to have made a hash of that as well.

Whatever way is found out of this mess, paid parking isn't the way forward.

Want to cure bad behaviour in the classroom? - Here's a simple solution.

I have two glasses.
Glass A is a really well made G&T.
Glass B is also a G&T but nowhere as good as the first.
How do I improve Glass B?
Simple.
I pour half of it into a jug and then top up Glass B from Glass A.
I now top up Glass A from the jug.

Hopefully you can see the flaw in this simple solution.
Yes, I’ve improved the quality of Glass B but I’ve also decreased the quality of Glass A.
Now, instead of having one really good glass of G&T and one poor mixture, I have two sort of “ok” glasses.

In essence, this is what our Education department want to do with our Secondary school system. Mix everyone together and get rid of the problems besetting some of our High schools.

However, my example must be wrong because the Department think that there will be no adverse effect on Glass A. Somehow magically, both Glass A and Glass B will improve without any further interventions.

The Glass A kids will have more influence on the overall mix because there are more of them. No, that can’t be right because there are actually less of them overall.

Perhaps will work because the majority of kids in the Glass B schools do actually want to work but are being held back by a minority with undue influence. So by introducing some Glass A kids, that influence will decrease because…

You can see I’m having a problem here. I just can’t understand how it’s going to work.

You see, schools aren’t all about the kids. Schools are about the whole school community which should be led from the top.

If anyone has undue influence over a school it should be the Head and the Staff of the school. If they are unable to set the tone and ethos then the problem is much bigger than one of mere numbers and will not be cured by mixing everyone together and shaking up the pot.

Most of Guernsey’s Education Committee view the 11+ as divisive and outdated and a major contributor to this problem.

They are half right.

But their solution in a lot of peoples eyes seems to be to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Dilute the effectiveness of the one well performing school for a hoped for benefit overall.

You look at our Grammar school and you see excellent results and (in the main) well behaved students who are a credit to their community. The majority will stay on for higher education and will go off to university.

Then you look at the High schools and see somewhat mixed to poor results with some very poorly behaved individuals. A minority will progress into further education but the majority will not and therefore won’t go to university.

But that majority of High school pupils are still well behaved and most will be a credit to their schools and their community. They are not bad kids and they are not failures. They are just not as good at passing the narrow range tests which pass for measuring the value of education these days.

The title of this piece promised a simple solution to cure bad behaviour in the classroom and here it is.

Remove it.

Simply take the bad behaviour out of the classroom and out of the school.

A larger part of the problem is not the school, it is everything else which affects those kids who are causing the problems, most of which occurs outside of the school gates.

Leave teachers to teach and don’t continue to leave them with the addition burdens of trying to sort out society’s problems as reflected in these disaffected children and young adults.

Don’t dilute the overall mix and hope it will work. Instead, take out all of those who can’t or don’t want to learn and give them the focussed and professional attention they need to sort out their problems.

Don’t give up on them. Just recognise that they need special attention which cannot be delivered in a mainstream school system without there being a substantial detrimental effect on the other children in that system.

Every child deserves the chance of a good education.
 
At the moment, we are failing too many children because we refuse to accept that not every child deserves the same education. Not everyone is suited to an academic system focussed on passing exams so why do we keep trying to give them one?
 
Look around. We don’t just need academics. We need postmen and plumbers, bank clerks and builders, retail workers and rest home carers. Our society need a whole range of people with differing skill sets.
 
Why not have an education system which recognises this and ensures that we not only produce these much needed people but we also give them the skills to become the best that they can be.
 
At the moment we seem to have a system designed by those who have benefited from and were best suited to an academic system. 

We also seem fixated on academic exam results as the sole measure of a person’s worth or a school’s effectiveness.
 
There’s a lot that needs to change but first we need to change our mindset and sadly that will take a different approach than that currently being pursued by the Department.
 
I know I’m proposing what sounds like the old “Technical Schools” system but what’s wrong with that.
 
The Tech system was replaced because it failed. It failed because the Techs were seen as a second class system and funded accordingly.
 
Different doesn’t mean second class and it doesn’t mean cheap. It just means different. Starve any school of funding and the results are easily predictable. We’ve seen that already and are only now starting to make amends.
 
Guernsey could lead the way in devising a system of education which allows every child to get the best education suitable to their needs.
 
Now that’s a Vision worth pursuing.

Leadership?

 Our Education Board seem to have a number of problems.
 
They’ve no precise idea what constitutes a good education nor how to go about achieving one. Their Vision seems to say that they don’t like what we’ve got but it stops short of setting out a blueprint for what they want to replace the existing model with.
 
They’ve no real grasp of the problems getting in the way of Guernsey students achieving better results nor of how to resolve such problems. If they have then they haven’t told the rest of us. 

Maybe they just don’t want to wash their dirty linen in public. 

Understandable but I’d rather they tell the truth and shame the Devil if we’re trading old sayings.
 
They don’t even know precisely what they or the Guernsey public want or how to achieve it. To be fair though, nobody on the planet has yet come up with a gold standard education which we might all be willing to sign up to.
 
All of these problems has resulted in a Vision which lacks clarity, which doesn’t seem to know where it’s going or how exactly to get there.
 
These are mere assertions but I feel backed up by the fact that nobody reading the Vision or anything else coming out from The Grange at the moment will come away being able to tell you any of the above.
 
Maybe it’s just too big a problem to tackle all at one.
 
Maybe it would be better to fix what’s broken at the moment and then look for further improvements.
 
But first, you’ve got to know what’s broken.
 
Make a list.
 
Then take each item on that list and say why you think it is broken and what you think are the reasons contributing to it not working.
 
Then take each of those reasons in turn and state how you are going to change them to result in a better outcome.
 
Finally show what the end result will look like and how you will know when you’ve got there. Concrete expectations and concrete measurements of results.
 
If we do this and that measurable outcome happens, then we will deem our intervention a success.
 
I think it’s a variation of the scientific method. Factual, logical, and a model of clarity.
 
None of this sounds difficult but don’t be deceived. It is next to impossible if you don’t have a firm and thorough understanding of your remit as a base line to start from.
 
Maybe our Education Board do know exactly what they want and how to achieve to it but I doubt it.
 
Why else would they introduce the concept of Federation without setting out precisely what problems they need to solve, how precisely they intend to solve them, or what the criteria are for a successful outcome.
 
Instead they’ve come up with a vague idea and asked the Heads involved to be responsible for its success and implementation. Oh, and by the way, if it doesn’t work it’s because you’re not committed enough to our Vision and we won’t hesitate to blame you for its failure.
 
Is this the best way to lead?
 
No, of course not.
 
Maybe it’s time to revisit that Vision and put some meat on the bones.
 
Say it as it is and have the courage of your convictions. Be prepared to defend your position and to admit it if you are proved wrong. 

Even be prepared to admit that you don’t have all the answers and that perhaps those on the ground might just know better.
 
You’ll never be able to carry everyone with you but you should be able to convince the majority of your workforce that you know what the problems are and that your proposed solutions represent the best way forward to a successful resolution.
 
If you can’t convince your workforce, who will be the ones delivering your solution, then how are you going to convince the rest of us?
 
Of course, none of this is rocket science so I can’t see why it’s not being implemented. After all, our Education Board is made up of intelligent people.
 
So what am I missing?
 
Why does this Board seem to want to take an autocratic approach to everything and impose their will on the rest of us. Haven’t they learned the lessons from the past?
 
It doesn’t work!
 
What would I do?
 
Well, let’s take the Federation issue as an example.
 
I’d put together a survey to send to every teacher likely to be directly affected by our proposals.
 
These are the individual problems as we see them. Do you agree? Yes or No?
 
Are there any other problems?
 
These are what we think are causing these problems and these are the solutions? Again, do you agree? Yes or No?
 
What have we missed?
 
This is how we think the solutions should be implemented and these are the results we will measure our success by. Same questions as before.
 
Can you improve these suggestions?
 
Then I would give my email address and ask for input.
 
Are we looking at the right problems or have we missed something more important?
 
Have we identified the main drivers of those problems or are there more?
 
Have we got the best solutions and the best way of implementation?
 
Have you got any better ideas?
 
Then, after considering the responses, I’d feed back the responses in percentage terms for agreement, disagreement, and  no response.
 
I’d also detail the other problems and solutions identified and set out the reasons for my agreement or disagreement.
 
Finally I would set out the amended proposals having taken on board all of the feedback.
 
By now I would have a way forward which represents a broad consensus of those professionals affected by the changes.
 
So I have shown leadership by setting out my committee’s original proposals. I have listened to the feedback and I have amended our proposals to represent a consensus approach to the solution.
 
Then I would appoint a team to oversee implementation but with me as the Chairman and with overall responsibility. If it fails, it’s down to me.
 
That’s how I see strong leadership working.
 
Anyone agree?

Basic economics and the road to ruin

One of the basic laws of economics is that of “Supply and Demand”. It has the fundamental premise that there is a potentially infinite supply and an equally infinite demand. It’s called a free market.
 
It’s also very simple to understand.
 
If supply is plentiful then the price will be cheap until such time as the demand increases to outstrip supply. Then scarcity will drive the price up. At that point new suppliers will be attracted by the profits, enter the marketplace and drive the price back down to a reasonable level again.
 
Already you can see the problems.
 
What if the supply is artificially restricted?
 
Demand continues to outstrip supply and the price stays high.
 
In a free market, other suppliers would come on the scene and, with the increased supply, drive the price down. But there is rarely such a thing as a completely free market.
 
Take Guernsey.
 
We are an Island and we’ve seen this law in operation with our shops.
 
Supply was restricted by the number of shops and the difficulty of establishing a new business here. Why start a new (say) bookshop, when there are already three around and only so many readers to sell to. If we’d been in the UK, no doubt a major bookseller would have bought into the marketplace and deep discounted the others out of existence but this didn’t happen because basically we weren’t worth it. The demand was insufficient.
 
Instead the internet happened and e-books happened and suddenly the book market has changed and bookshops are a dying breed.
 
New suppliers, avoiding the artificial restrictions, have come into the marketplace and driven the prices down.
 
The same is now happening with almost every other type of shop everywhere else on the Island.
 
Now lets look at residential property.
 
No chance of a new supplier coming into the marketplace; there is no more land, unless we reclaim or build skywards, or release dormant land being held derelict for just such a day.
 
So the basic law of supply and demand cannot work. There is no free market.
 
But we pretend there is and allow this law to fix the price of homes in Guernsey.
 
The results are predictable.
 
Fixed supply and a ready demand makes the prices rise until they reach a level where demand falls off.
 
That’s where our economy provides a double kick.
 
We have a financial elite who are able to command high salaries because of our beneficial tax regime which attracts wealth preservation schemes to be based here.
 
I make no judgement on such an arrangement as it is keeping the Island alive but we must recognise the cost.
 
The cost, as far as property is concerned is that the demand is inflated by a substantial number of affluent people chasing a fixed number of houses.
 
The ordinary person is being priced out of the market by those in, or servicing, the financial sector who are able to afford to buy property.
 
Not only  that but a lot of these people have been able to build up property portfolios and rent them out at ever increasing levels of income because, again, there is an artificially restricted level of supply.
 
The result is that Guernsey is becoming a haven for the well off, with the ordinary population forced to pay high rents or leave.
 
Many of our youngsters are choosing the second option and we wonder why.
 
What is the answer?
 
Regretfully it is state intervention, something which just isn’t going to happen.
 
It’s either that or revolution and that won’t be allowed to happen either.
 
What we need is affordable housing and to get that we need to break the hold of free market economics. Recognise that we do not have a free market and act accordingly.
 
This means state intervention which means taxes.
 
1) Introduce rent control and restrict the ability of landlords to charge what they deem the marketplace will bear. Also introduce effective supervision of minimum standards to residential properties to ensure that landlords meet their responsibilities to ensure that their properties are habitable and suitable for the numbers living there. No more ten to a room with one shared bathroom.
 
2) Introduce a capital gains tax on the sale of all properties which are not an individual’s principle private residence. This will hopefully stop speculation and the treatment of homes as investments.
 
3) Couple this with an empty property tax to dissuade people from buying or holding property as an investment be it buildings or land.
 
The aim of all of this is to remove the idea of property being used as something to invest in. Houses and land should be there for homes and not for investment.
 
Burst the property bubble and bring prices down to a level where ordinary people can at least aspire to living and thriving on the Island of their birth.
 
Will anything like this happen?
 
No.
 
Too many vested interests and too many politicians with property portfolios.
 
It would take a revolution and that’s never going to happen either.
 
Instead we will see the poverty gap widen and the emigration levels increase and the time bomb of an ageing population tick ever closer to explosion
 
But hey, why worry?
 
We can always market the Island as a huge gated community for the elderly well off where they won’t have the bother of an underclass who have been priced out of existence.

Federation

I’m told that this Education board has the highest number of “education professionals” for some time.
 
You’d think they’d know better then.
 
If you want to introduce any radical change then the first step is to bring on board those whom the changes will affect the most.
 
Instead, this Board seem to think that they can treat their staff like chess pieces. We’re a bit weak in this corner so let’s just move you where we think you’ll be of more use.
 
Maybe that chess piece was more than happy where they were. 

Maybe they even made a conscious decision that being in that particular square was the best place for them. But no, the chess master knows better.
 
This is not the way to do things.
 
People are not chess pieces and you cannot just chop and change as you think best.
 
This Board seem to have forgotten that their most valuable asset is their staff, and I don’t mean those manning the desks in HQ or those few brains deemed capable of having Visions.
 
You have, in the main, a dedicated and hardworking set of professional people who spend every day at the sharp end and who just might have some ideas of their own for getting out of the mess your predecessors have created. Stop treating them as the enemy and consult.
 
Consult as a precursor to potential change and not as an afterthought when your minds and plans are already set in concrete.
 
Be open and frank about what you want to strategically achieve and seek comments and input as to how this ideal might be made real. 

It’s a long way down from your tower and you probably can’t see the potential problems on the ground from up there.
 
Schools are communities to be nurtured and not silos to be stormed and defeated.
 
By all means share best practice but let it be done willingly and voluntarily. No horse is going to drink from this well of knowledge if they are forced to the water's edge at the wrong end of the whip.
 
It’s just not good enough and you should know better.

Review of the year

So that was 2013.

Different dates but the same old stories.
 
Maybe this New Year will be different and maybe pigs really will fly sometime in the next twelve months.
 
It’s all been written before and all you need to do is look back in these archives and change the names.
 
Prophesies for 2014?
 
Another States department will be shown as shambolic but still it won’t be anybody’s fault.
 
Politicians will call for things to be done and changes to be made across the board but nothing will actually get done except for maybe agreeing a few pay rises or investigative trips abroad.
 
SAP will continue to be the success it already is but nobody will get the blame except for the users.
 
Financial cuts will still need to be made but money will still be wasted on vainglorious projects.
 
Our local media will keep up its high standards of investigative reportage unless Facebook breaks down.
 
Our Education system will be tinkered with, argued about, and generally messed up but without addressing the elephant in the room.

In short, more of the same as last year and last year and…

(To be resumed if anything truly original happens)

Tertiary Education

 Predictably, our Education department are currently looking at the cost of Tertiary Education or, in other words, how to reduce the cost of sending so many people off to university on the Mainland.
 
In any civilised society, education should be both free and freely available. It is after all the future lifeblood of such a society.
 
Any loving parent will not hesitate to spend for the benefit of their children but equally they should not waste money on non-essentials if money is tight.
 
As an Island we’re told that money is indeed tight so it makes sense for Education to look at whether we’re “getting enough bang for our buck”.
 
The first thing to consider is who should be paying for the cost of getting a degree?
 
Some countries have decided that such costs should be borne by the student but we’re already seeing the problems which this course of action creates.
 
Young people starting their productive life already burdened with high levels of debt and a costly administrative system which will have to write off lots of loans as simply unrecoverable.
 
Then there is the question of flight.
 
Why pay back the loan when you can leave the country and never return? After all, the cost of pursuing the debt will probably be greater than the amount eventually recovered if, and it is only an if, such action is successful.
 
As an Island this point should potentially scupper our taking this route. The last thing we want to do is drive away any highly educated young person who wants to contribute to our economy.
 
Degree costs are already partially means tested locally but do we go far enough?
 
Rich people will always be able to afford the very best for their children regardless of whether it’s by covering the student loan or by paying outright for the education of their offspring.
 
At present there is a maximum parental contribution.
 
Why?
 
The rich already benefit from a flat rate of income tax, no capital gains tax, and no inheritance tax. Why increase these benefits by making the ordinary taxpayer contribute to the further education of their offspring?
 
We also should be wary of pricing tertiary education so that it becomes the preserve of the well off. If a student is bright enough to gain a degree then why should cost be an issue?
 
Unfortunately and in the UK, the entry bar for a degree has been lowered considerably by some universities eager for cash.
 
We do not have to play that game.
 
As a separate jurisdiction, we can insist that students attain a minimum success standard at A level of say three “C”s before we will fund the degree. That should cut out some of the so called “Mickey Mouse” degree courses and the more desperate universities.
 
On that point, should we consider restricting which courses the States will fund?
 
This is a difficult question in that a lot of degrees open the individual to employment in lots of different areas, showing capability for successful study at this high level.
 
One could argue that we shouldn’t fund medical degrees as we’ve no use for newly qualified or junior doctors. As we have no professional theatre we might also cut out all performing arts degrees.
 
We only need so many teachers each year so why not restrict teacher training and PGCE courses?
 
The problem is where to stop.
 
Most subjects in themselves have little direct use but of course a flair for performance can make for an excellent teacher and that newly qualified doctor will one day become a consultant who will want to return with their skills to the Island.
 
Can’t see why we would fund a degree in Viking Studies or Cruise Management though.
 
Unfortunately, a degree is becoming the minimum level for job entry into so many areas that we cannot restrict our students too much if we want them to compete in the modern world.
 
It is a complex area and not one for easy answers. Hopefully the reviewers of our system will be educated enough to realise this.

Tolerance

“Ladies and Gentlemen, we are about to land at Guernsey Airport so please set your watches back fifteen years”.
 
It’s an old joke and barely still relevant.
 
I mean, who wears a watch these days?
 
We do however seem to drag behind the times in a lot of ways which isn’t always a bad thing. At least it gives us a chance to see where others go wrong before we rush headlong towards copying them.
 
Take Gay Rights for instance.
 
Here the world seems deeply divided, with some countries or states promoting or allowing gay marriage whilst others ban and criminalise the very thought of love between two of the same sex.
 
It wasn’t so long ago here that homosexuality was the love that dare not speak its name and only in 2010 did Guernsey lower the age of consent to match that for heterosexual couples.
 
Why is there such a fuss about a person’s sexuality?
 
Does it make them any less of a person or a better individual?
 
Is being gay catching?
 
Would you know if you’re standing next to one in the shopping queue?
 
Why does it matter?
 
There still seems to be a residual fear that homosexuality will creep across this Island and end up infecting all of us. Either that or we’ll all be attacked in our beds by raging queens.
 
It isn’t going to happen.
 
Locals and other residents alike have already come out of the closet and the sky hasn’t collapsed on us all. It’s just made a few individuals a bit more happier that they don’t have to live a lie any longer.
 
Of course it has also made a few different individuals more angry as, seemingly in their minds, homosexuals are not put on this earth to be happy.
 
This can be called all sorts of things but intolerance is probably a word which can cover it.
 
Intolerance that these people can have the same rights and breath the same air as normal decent people.
 
It obviously makes sense to them but sounds daft to me.
 
Let’s change the context slightly and see if it still makes any sense.
 
Being left handed is wrong.
 
People should all be right handed and made to be right handed.
 
Lefties shouldn’t have the same rights as normal people.
 
Watch yourself, she’s a leftie.
 
Keep them away from children, they might turn them into lefties.
 
Sounds stupid doesn’t it?
 
Being left handed is something you are born with, like having blue eyes or being ginger.
 
Or being gay.
 
You can be forced to spend the whole of your life holding a pen in your right hand but you are still left handed. Someone suddenly throws a ball at you and you’ll instinctively catch it with your left hand because that’s the way you’re wired.
 
That’s all that being left handed means.
 
It doesn’t make you a second class citizen or less, or more, of a person. It’s just the way you are.
 
And that’s what being gay should mean.
 
It’s just the way you are and the rest of the world just keeps on going as it always does and the bills still need paying and you still hate having to get up early in the morning to go to work.
 
Nobody worries about or comments on someone being left handed so why can’t we do the same for gays?
 
If two people love each other enough to make a long term commitment then why can’t Guernsey allow that to happen legally and disregard their sexuality?
 
Maybe it’s time we wound things up a bit and moved those watch hands forward a decade or so.

Adequacy

We all make mistakes.
 
This article isn’t about making mistakes. It’s about general levels of performance.
 
Would you like to be operated on by a brain surgeon with a generally low level of performance?
 
How about entrusting your life to an Air Traffic Controler who is deemed barely adequate?
 
In both cases, obviously not.
 
We regularly and strictly measure the performance of those with such potentially life threatening jobs and remove the ones who fail to meet the high levels of performance demanded by their profession.
 
Why then don’t we do the same for teachers?
 
These people are, after all, responsible on a day to day basis for the education of future generations of working Islanders.
 
What can be more precious than a good education?
 
And what can be more life threatening than a poor one?
 
Yet we continue to employ teachers who either have never quite matched up to the job or who have drifted in their performance over the years and are well past their “Sell by date”.
 
I know it’s popular to blame the teachers for most things these days and I also know that the great majority of teachers are both dedicated and hard working. But there are also some who are not.
 
So why are they still employed as teachers?
 
If we are insistent on improving the general level of education on this Island then one of the factors is the ability of those delivering that education on a daily basis.
 
Every Head worth their salt, which I hope by now means every Head, should know which of their staff is under performing on a regular basis. Unfortunately they also know just how difficult it is to remove such staff and most try to work around the problem rather than seek to address the root cause.
 
What we need is a way to remove and retrain these low performers so that they may move out of the role to which they are no longer suited.
 
Business does this so why can’t the public sector?
 
As soon as a trader stops delivering the profits, they are off of their desk and in a lot of cases these days, out of the building.
 
I’m not advocating such harsh measures but we cannot excuse long term poor performance in the classroom.
 
In part, the recent voluntary redundancy package has sought to address part of the problem. Yes, that measure is driven by cost cutting but who in their right mind is going to allow a high performing individual to leave their job?
 
What we now need is another programme to retrain those who should no longer be in front of a class. Something which recognises the continuing worth of these individuals but not in their present roles.
 
Will it happen?
 
No, because it is difficult and probably expensive to set up.
 
Nobody is going to incur the real cost of such a program when they can continue to ignore the hidden cost to the education of future generations.
 
Instead we’ll continue to bemoan the low levels of literacy and numeracy in the current crop of school leavers and do nothing truly effective to correct the problem.
 
Yes, this is only one factor in the cause but it’s a vital part of the solution.

Democracy in Guernsey

We like to think that we live in a democratic society.
 
We know that we don’t want to be too involved in the running of that society so we have a system whereby we get to elect people to do this for us. People we can trust to act responsibly on our behalf; act as a proxy for us.
 
Sadly, this is all a fiction.
 
It’s been a fiction ever since the first day when one of our elected representatives decided to think for themselves. 

Instead of acting on the will of the people, our representatives now trot out the line that they’ve got to be trusted to follow their conscience or best judgement or whatever. If we’ve enough trust to elect them then we should extend that trust to allow them to do what they want, secure in the knowledge that they will always try to act in what they think are our best interests.
 
This isn’t democracy.
 
It’s actually an abdication of our responsibilities rather than the delegation it was intended to be. We have allowed this situation to develop and it is now haunting us.
 
It is haunting us every time our representatives act on something which they’ve never consulted us about, or decide to change their minds from what they told us they would do in the light of new information or maybe just because they don’t want some bad press for making a difficult decision.
 
It doesn’t have to be that way.
 
I don’t know exactly how many people are entitled to vote in Guernsey elections but let’s say it’s 40,000.
 
The party line is that this number is too unwieldy to consult about every single policy the States debate and that is why we have Deputies.
 
That may be true about the small stuff but what about the big decisions?
 
Take the recent vote on population control.
 
Talk to anyone living in Guernsey and most will tell you that it’s too crowded. We simply have too many people living here for the available space if we’re to retain Guernsey as it is. People are interested in controlling our population and it’s right that the States come up with some ideas of what to do.
 
But for such a big decision with such huge ongoing ramifications, shouldn’t there have been some form of public consultation? No, forget consultation. Each deputy should have stood before their electors and stated how they intended to vote and why and then asked whether this represented the views of the people who had elected them because this is something which wasn’t envisaged when you guys elected me in the first place.
 
Too difficult?
 
The problem is that it might create a precedent. Start involving the people too much in real decision making and they might get a taste for it. Much easier to have a beauty contest every four years and then ignore them for the rest of the time.
 
Could real democracy work in Guernsey?
 
Could we give each and every one of us the same voting rights as a Deputy? Let’s try and imagine what it would be like.
 
Every month I get access to the same information as my Deputy prior to the States monthly assembly. I then get access to the debate which is broadcast live but also available on demand via my computer and the States website.
 
At this stage nobody has voted for anything but everything has been said.
 
We then have a week’s period of reflection during which time we have the ability to vote for or against, just as each Deputy might. 

We also have the right to allow our deputy to make their own decision and the right not to participate at all, which amounts to the same thing.
 
If over 50% of the eligible voting population decide in a particular direction then that is the vote and that is the decision to  be ratified by the States. Anything less and we let the deputies decide but in accordance with the wishes of their electorate if their area vote is over 50% or very substantial.
 
Would I be prepared to wade through the Billet each and every month?
 
At the moment, the majority of the voting population are somewhat apathetic because they know that their individual decision has very little weight. I can’t even vote for the deputies I trust unless they happen to be standing in my district.
 
But what if we knew our voices actually carried some real power?