Grant aided Schools: grants (P.72/2011) – comments.

STATES OF JERSEY

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

Presented to the States on 6th June 2011

by the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture

STATES GREFFE

2011   Price code: B  P.72 Com.

COMMENTS

Paragraph (a)

The  Minister  for  Education,  Sport  and  Culture  opposes  paragraph (a)  of  this proposition and urges members to reject it.

Background

The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture is charged, under the provision of the Education (Jersey) Law 1999, to "ensure that there is available to every child of compulsory school age a full time education appropriate to their age, ability and aptitude".

Since 1966, the States has supported private fee-paying schools through a grant to subsidise  the  fees  paid  by  parents.  The  Education  (Jersey)  Law  1999  continued existing policy under which the Education Committee (now the Minister) can vary the grant payable to the schools.

Consultation to date

Senator Shenton refers in paragraph (a) of his proposition to the requirement of a meaningful consultation' before any changes are made to the grants of the listed fee- paying schools. This suggests that the Minister and officers from the Department have not been in discussions with the affected schools. On the contrary, there have been extensive discussions with the Boards of governors, trustees and senior leadership staff from each school in order to develop the proposed reduction in grant.

Formal negotiations with the schools started in September 2010. Since then, there has been ongoing consultation and a series of meetings between officers and schools to identify ways of implementing the saving that will limit the impact on parents and pupils. The Minister has met with Boards of Governors and liaised with parent groups, including meeting Parents For Choice'.

CSR information on the proposed reduction has been widely distributed and shared with States Members and the public.

Comments have been received from parents, and open letters have been sent to all parents explaining the progress, as well as Ministerial statements and media releases. A  parents'  meeting  has  already  taken  place  at  Beaulieu  Convent  School  and  the Minister has offered to attend similar meetings at all other fee-paying schools.

In  addition,  he  has  explained  the  proposal  in  media  interviews, including  BBC's Talkback phone-in, and also answered numerous written and oral questions about this in the States. Separately, officers from the Department have met individual States Members, including Senator Shenton, and the proposals were also discussed in detail with the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel in January.

Although the proposal applies to all the main fee-paying schools, each school is different and it has been necessary to take this into account when determining how the reduction in grant can be managed and delivered.

In the case of Beaulieu Convent School, work undertaken with the Department has helped achieve savings and efficiencies that would have been necessary to ensure its long-term sustainability, irrespective of this proposal.

Overall, the process will help the schools become more financially secure in future. It has  also  encouraged  them  to  explore  greater  collaboration  and  shared  services, including the opportunity to provide a broader range of A' level subjects, which is in the best interests of students.

Green Paper

There appears to be some misunderstanding of the purpose of the Green Paper on education. First and foremost, it is designed to improve public understanding about the Island's education system and to seek views on whether people are happy with the current provision, or if change is required in order to meet the needs of our children in the future.

It is time the debate is widened to include all aspects of education, rather than simply focussing on the role that fee-paying schools play in the Island's overall education system.

To clarify, there are 2 parallel pieces of work taking place –

• CSR: A major project to deliver targeted savings of 10% over the period 2011–13;
• Green Paper: A strategic document for public consultation on the long-term future of education.

The Green Paper will cover all the key educational areas and is due to be published as soon as possible. This is designed as a starting point for a wide debate about Jersey's education system and will help determine whether changes are required to make it fit for the future.

From the beginning, the deliberate intention was to have a broad discussion about all educational issues and promote greater understanding about how the system works. The Green Paper was never designed to provide immediate answers or solutions to the short-term funding dilemmas of the CSR. Its scope is much wider than that. The aim is to have a genuinely open consultation – not one that promotes a preconceived set of ideas on how education should be provided in the future.

If change is required, the Green Paper will be followed by one or more White Papers, specifically  targeted  to  address  particular  matters  raised  by  the  public  and  key stakeholders.

Support for fee-paying schools

Today, the Department for Education, Sport and Culture (DfESC) continues to support fee-paying schools in both the private and States sectors as follows –

The level of support provided to all of these schools is allocated according to a formula put in place in 1978. For secondary schools, this equates to 50% of the average funding for a pupil in the non-fee-paying sector. For the primary phase, it is 25% of the average funding for a primary pupil in the non-fee-paying sector.

Even after the reduction in grant has been delivered, most fee-paying schools will still receive substantial support.

Differential in funding

Currently, FCJ Primary School is the only primary school to receive a 40% grant. This additional  level  of  funding  was  introduced in  2003  when  the school  experienced financial difficulty. Thankfully this is no longer the case, and the school has returned to a healthy financial position. It would, therefore, be inappropriate for FCJ Primary to be treated differently from the other fee-paying primary schools, especially as their fees are currently the lowest of these schools.

It is unclear from Senator Shenton's proposition why he would wish to continue the funding differential between FCJ Primary School and the other fee-paying primary schools when this is no longer required.

Furthermore, Senator Shenton's proposition seeks to protect certain schools in receipt of  a  grant  and  not  others.  In  paragraph (a)  of  his  proposition,  he  has  omitted St. Michael's and St. George's from the list of schools included, with no explanation given to his rationale for this.

Additional States support

What must be recognised is that all fee-paying schools receive support from public funds, whether this is in the form of support from the Department, from a financial grant or support for their capital programme

It would be remiss to suggest that overheads can only be applied to the non-fee-paying provided and fee-paying provided schools. All fee-paying schools benefit from access to the majority of services – including training – that DfESC provides for its own schools.

Senator Shenton fails to recognise the support the States has provided the faith schools over many years. The States has supported a number of capital programmes for the faith schools totalling £6.5 million over the past 9 years.

Financial support provided by the States of Jersey has included the development of classroom space, an outdoor play surface, a resource centre and general building refurbishments (see Table 1). It is therefore inaccurate to suggest the States has not supported the development of the faith schools' premises. In fact the States provide central costs to the non-provided fee-paying schools totalling £90 per pupil, which States fee-paying schools do not receive.

Substantial support from public funds has been provided to the faith schools over a sustained period, even though they are entirely private. This is in recognition of the contribution they make to the Island's education system. Recently, Beaulieu has also benefited from fiscal stimulus funding of £570,000 to provide additional facilities.

In the private fee-paying schools – Beaulieu, De La Salle, FCJ, St. Michael's and St. George's – the school buildings are privately owned and it is the role of the Board of  Governors  to  manage  overall  finances,  determine  the  annual  fee  increase  and provide  financial  assistance  to  those  parents  who  find  themselves  in  temporary hardship (see Table 2 for historic fee increases).

In  contrast,  Victoria  College  and  Jersey  College  for  Girls  are  States  fee-paying schools. The premises are owned by the States of Jersey and the Boards of Governors are required to take account of the Minister's policies as they carry out their duties. These include proposing annual fee increases to the Minister, who has the ultimate responsibility for setting fees at an appropriate level. Since the current Minister took office, he has requested that fee increases be kept to a minimum and at times limited the increases to a level below that proposed by the governors.

Expenditure per pupil in the fee-paying and non-fee-paying sector

There is already a funding gap between the non-fee-paying and fee-paying schools. The average amount spent on the education of a child in the faith secondary schools is £7,466. This compares to £5,742 in the non-fee-paying sector, a differential of more than 30%.

Comparison - Fee Paying -v- Non Fee Paying - exclud ing SEN / Overheads

9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000

States Parents

1,000 0

Beaulieu/ Victoria College/ Average NFP DLS JCG exc SEN

In the UK, cuts have been underpinned by a pupil premium' in which the most disadvantaged students are targeted with extra funds. This is not the case in Jersey, and the current funding arrangement means the differential will continue to increase.

In 2004, the Education Committee agreed that, when approving any fee increases for Victoria College and Jersey College for Girls, it should take into consideration the amount spent on a pupil's education in the fee-paying sector compared with the non- fee-paying States schools. It felt that a modest differential' was acceptable to reflect the premium paid by parents for an enhanced service. It was, however, strongly of the view that a large differential would be unacceptable, as it could potentially create a socially divisive, 2 tier system.

Paragraph (b)

The  Minister  for  Education,  Sport  and  Culture  opposes  paragraph (b)  of  this proposition and urges members to reject it.

The Minister does not accept this proposal for the following reasons. Commitment in place to debate proposal

Senator  Perchard  withdrew  his  proposition  (P.164/2010 –  to  have  the  saving considered by the States) after a commitment was given for this matter to be debated as part of the forthcoming Annual Business Plan. Procedures are in place for this to happen. This proposal is one of a number being pursued in order to meet the States requirement to reduce overall expenditure by £65 million by 2013.

The Annual Business Plan debate is the correct forum to discuss all government spending.

Furthermore, it is the only time when members are able to consider all departments' proposals together, including those applicable to Education, Sport and Culture, and determine annual expenditure limits in the context of overall States spending.

No policy change is being proposed

Senator Shenton suggests the proposal to reduce the grants to fee-paying schools is a change of policy. The Minister disagrees with this. Under the Education (Jersey) Law 1999, the Education Committee (now the Minister) can vary the grant payable to the schools.  This  is  what  occurred  in  2003  when  additional  financial  assistance  was provided to FCJ. Changes to the level of grant are simply a variation within the existing policy – not a change to that policy, which remains in place.

The current proposal includes reducing the subsidy to fee-paying secondary schools over a period of 5 years. This extended timescale has been negotiated with each school to enable them to manage the saving in a way that has the minimum impact on their parents and pupils. In addition, one-off funding will be made available to schools, if required,  to  help  with  the  implementation  of  any  changes  resulting  from  their independent reviews.

Apart from FCJ, there is no reduction proposed for the grant to fee-paying primary schools mentioned in the proposition, which will remain at 25%.

There  is  a  clear  rationale  for  the  proposed  reduction  in  subsidies  to  fee-paying secondary schools –

• ESC is required to make savings of £11.1 million across its services. There is no reason why fee-paying schools should be immune from this process. Non- fee-paying schools have already been subject to efficiency savings for several years.
• All ESC services have been reviewed both internally and externally. The aim was to identify a package that would achieve savings in the short term without unbalancing the current system.
• It  is  acknowledged  that  where  possible  parental  choice –  including  the availability of faith education – should be supported, but the States has a responsibility to provide an education for all children in Jersey.
• Fee-paying faith schools have freedom to set their own fees and can mitigate the effects of efficiency savings passed on to them by increasing the fee level, which they have done. Non-fee-paying schools do not have that option. They have to cut services.
• The schools themselves have agreed that the extended timescale for delivery of the saving means there will not be a significant impact on their pupil numbers. The Department will work closely with the schools to monitor the impact of the reduction in subsidy.
• The fee increases proposed by each school are in line with the rises accepted by parents over the past decade (see Table 2). At the start of the millennium, fee increases were in the region of 10%, but there were no adverse effects and the schools retained their numbers. DfESC has received no indication from governing bodies that there would be a significant transfer to the non-fee- paying sector.

Paragraph (c)

The Minister believes this is unnecessary because discussions are already under way on these points.

The creation of service level agreements was recommended by the Comptroller and Auditor General previously, and discussions have already taken place with schools to this effect. Agreements are expected to be in place before December 2012.

The Minister recognises the new agreements will provide surety of funding for the schools and reassurance to the States that public money is used appropriately. Further work is required to ensure that any such agreement is appropriate and reflects the uniqueness of each school.

Bursaries  are  already  available  at  Jersey  College  for  Girls,  Victoria  College  and Beaulieu. De La Salle does not currently provide a scheme but has announced the creation of a hardship fund through its new foundation.

DfESC has proposed to set aside a sum to help schools deal with any additional demands on their bursary schemes during the transition period.

Clarification of figures used in the proposition

Although the allocation of school budgets used by the Senator have been provided by the Department, the Senator has used this data inconsistently to draw his conclusions. His assumptions are therefore incorrect and misleading.

This includes  calculating  the cost  per  pupil  in  the non-fee-paying  sector  primary schools before corporate savings of 1% have been saved and comparing this to the cost per pupil in the fee-paying schools after the corporate savings have been made. This increases the differential between the 2 sectors.

The Senator has included overhead allocations in the provided sector but failed to include these in the non-provided fee-paying schools. He has then chosen to compare the cost per child between the 2 sectors, again increasing the differential between the sectors.

Senator Shenton argues in his report that the cost to the taxpayer of educating a pupil at  Grainville  School  is  £7,956  and  this  compares  with  £2,982  for  Beaulieu. Unfortunately, the Senator has failed to make a valid comparison. He has included in his  figures  the  cost  of  a  specialist  resource  provision  for  children  with  Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Beaulieu and De La Salle do not have such a Unit.

The Senator has also failed to remove any allocation for specialist funding for children with social and emotional, behavioural disorders. Again, both Beaulieu and De La Salle do not provide support for children with these disorders.

It is the four 11–16 age-group secondary schools that support our young people with special needs. It is not the fee-paying schools. The cost per pupil in a selective school cannot be compared directly with the costs per pupil in a school providing education to children with specific special needs.

Table 1 – States expenditure on faith schools' capital programmes (from 2001)

Table 2 – Historic Fee Increases

Statement under Standing Order 37A [Presentation of comment relating to a proposition]

This comment was submitted to the States Greffe after the noon deadline as the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture was unavailable to approve it until after noon on Friday 3rd June.