Grant Aided Schools: Grants (P.72/2011) - amendment

STATES OF JERSEY

r

GRANT AIDED SCHOOLS: GRANTS (P.72/2011) – AMENDMENT

Lodged au Greffe on 31st May 2011 by Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier

STATES GREFFE

2011   Price code: B  P.72 Amd.

GRANT AIDED SCHOOLS: GRANTS (P.72/2011) – AMENDMENT PAGE 2, PARAGRAPH (a) –

After the words "Victoria College Preparatory School" insert the words "and funding for all non-fee paying schools".

DEPUTY D.J. DE SOUSA OF ST. HELIER

REPORT

The proposed savings for Education, Sport and Culture will be a concern to a majority of people within the Island, also the vast majority of States Members. Education is a fundamental aspect of life and should be treated with the due respect that it deserves, no matter what social, cultural or ethnic background any individual comes from. The Minister has a duty to all children of school age to provide education.

Non-fee paying schools have taken a hit in their budgets year on year for the last 10 years (see Appendix) due to States cutbacks. Not once has any States member in the last 10 years raised this issue until now. Even though there are a number of teachers amongst the States Chamber present and past.

The challenges faced by educational institutions around the world, now and in the future,  are  incomprehensible.  If  the  Island  wishes  to  see  continued  wealth  and prosperity, the best public services and a future for our economy, I would argue that it is  not  only  our  fee-paying  schools,  but  the  non-fee-paying  too  that  should  be momentarily protected from the forthcoming cuts to public funding.

Some  Members  have  chosen  to  turn  Education  into  a  political  football,  making sweeping selective statements about fee-paying and non-fee-paying schools. To single out particular schools without identifying the multiple services that schools such as Haute Vallée, Rouge Bouillon, etc. need to provide in order to fulfill the Minister's obligation under the Education (Jersey) Law 1999 to provide, as I have said, education to  every  child  of  compulsory  age  is  only  divisive.  The  Spending  Review  report completed  by  the  Public  Accounts  Committee  on  23rd  April  2010  identified  the following Findings and Recommendations.

26. Key Finding

The predicted impact of a fee increase is greatly overstated by ESC, especially as many schools have waiting lists. These assertions are made without any supporting documentation and some conclusions appear recklessly incorrect. It is highly unlikely that there will be the level of withdrawals from fee-paying schools indicated by Education Sport  and  Culture  based  on  the  fee  increases  indicated.  The suggestion that a small increase in fees would result in the removal of all fee paying students (at a subsequent cost to the tax payer of up to £7 million) is absurd.

27. Recommendation

The PAC requests that Education, Sport and Culture undertake a meaningful  examination  of  optimal  fees,  thanking  into  account waiting lists and the apparent lack of confidence by some parents in the non fee paying schools is an optimal level sector. Furthermore the PAC  acknowledges  that  the  continuation  of  funding  fee  paying schools  at  an  optimal  level  is  prudent  from  both a  financial  and educational perspective.

2.36  Key Finding

£480,000  (the  proposed  reduction  in  funding  to  the  fee-paying colleges) appears to be an arbitrary figure and not reflective of the true costs. ESC does not know the true cost of sending pupil to JCG or Victoria College.

2.27  Recommendation

The grant system to the private educational sector does not provide value as it encourages a large proportion of tax payers to contribute to education through fees. However, the funding mechanism must be transparent and show no favoritism to individual schools.

We could all go down the route and view education as a business. Continually cut within  the  non-fee-paying  schools  and  watch  them  wither  away  due  to  statutory obligations to provide public-funded education. They are not able to increase income via parental contribution of fees (under Article 27) so where would the extra monies come from to meet the challenges of the future?

It would appear to me that the misconception and ignorance being used within this money war screams for further understanding of exactly what it is the Education Department provide to ALL Islanders. The Green Paper will (I hope) provide us with this and help everyone be a part of making the decisions for the future of our children and the generations that will follow.

In order for this to happen, we cannot single out one section of the Education system and assume that they are more worthy than the rest, based on sweeping statements. States Members need to recognize the importance of this debate, not only to parents of children  at  fee-paying  schools,  but  also  to  those  with  children  at  non-fee-paying schools.

Financial and manpower implications

All Education establishments should be afforded the same consideration therefore, as Senator Shenton who proposed the main proposition states: "We should await the full publication of the White Paper before we slash any more funding from the Education budget."  In  effect,  the  financial  implication  is  that  the  funding  allocated  to  the Education, Sport and Culture Department should be increased to take into account the lost  costs.  This  can  be  achieved  through  larger  Education  budget  in  the  Annual Business Plan, or through an amendment to the Annual Business Plan based on the wishes of the States Assembly.

In supporting this amendment to the main proposition, members are sending out a clear  message  that,  whilst  the  need  to  save  costs  is  acknowledged,  there  is  a responsibility to act in a professional manner after due consultation, consideration and the publication of a definitive way forward.

I want education to be completely inclusive, not elitist.

APPENDIX 3