Grant aided Schools: grants

STATES OF JERSEY

GRANT AIDED SCHOOLS: GRANTS

Lodged au Greffe on 11th May 2011 by Senator B.E. Shenton

STATES GREFFE

2011   Price code: D  P.72

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion

1. to request the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture to maintain grants  to Beaulieu  Convent  School,  De  La  Salle  College,  F.C.J. Primary School, Jersey College for Girls Preparatory School, Jersey College for Girls, Victoria College and Victoria College Preparatory School at the current levels pending publication of the forthcoming Education White Paper, ensuring that there is meaningful consultation through a Green Paper beforehand;
2. to request the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture to lodge as a separate  proposition,  both  ahead  of  and  outside  of  the  Annual Business Plan process, any changes to the current arrangements with detailed analysis of the reason for the policy change, as well as the benefits and deficiencies of any proposed change, and to refrain from implementing any changes until the revised policy has been approved by the States Assembly;
3. to request the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture to establish service level agreements between the Education Department and the receivers  of  any  grant  described  above,  setting  out  the  minimum requirements  in  respect  of  educational  standards  and  facilities, including  the  provision  of  any  bursary  schemes, and  brought into force by December 2012.

SENATOR B.E. SHENTON

REPORT

"Fee paying education in Jersey is a model for a public /private partnership that works. However shoot first, and ask questions later, seems to be the motto of the Education Minister. There is a desire to put political expediency ahead of proper research and planning in order to provide knee-jerk short-term savings that will prove to be extremely expensive both financially and in terms of the educational achievements of future generations. The Department has promised consultation followed  by  a  White  Paper  covering  the  future  of  education –  let  us  have  the opportunity to analyze this before we start deconstructing a system that works."

Firstly it is important to establish that allowing parents to contribute extra to their children's education by subsidising fees is a great deal for the taxpayer.

The table below illustrates taxpayer costs on a per pupil basis at current funding levels;

TAXPAYER COST PER PUPIL EXCLUDING CENTRAL COSTS OF £7,500,000.

TOTAL

STATES

FUNDING

ex Central  TOTAL  AVERAGE SCHOOL  Costs  PUPILS  COST

1  GRAINVILLE  Secondary  3,909,159  554  7,056 2  HAUTLIEU  Secondary  4,471,229  672  6,654 3  HAUTE VALLÉE  Secondary  4,266,029  712  5,992 4  LE ROCQUIER  Secondary  5,184,032  900  5,760 5  GRANDS VAUX  Primary  832,989  148  5,628 6  LES QUENNEVAIS  Secondary  4,576,927  825  5,548 7  ST. MARY  Primary  783,891  147  5,333 8  BEL ROYAL  Primary  819,967  159  5,157 9  SAMARÈS  Primary  1,060,959  211  5,028 10  ST. LUKE  Primary  829,680  170  4,880 11  LES LANDES  Primary  762,438  159  4,795 12  MONT NICOLLE  Primary  796,816  167  4,771 13  ST. SAVIOUR  Primary  811,899  171  4,748 14  TRINITY  Primary  748,665  158  4,738 15  ST. LAWRENCE  Primary  787,209  167  4,714 16  ST. CLEMENT  Primary  820,137  175  4,686 17  ST. JOHN  Primary  789,157  169  4,670 18  SPRINGFIELD  Primary  833,411  179  4,656 19  ROUGE BOUILLON  Primary  1,616,135  353  4,578 20  ST. PETER  Primary  793,870  174  4,562 21  PLAT DOUET  Primary  1,401,091  320  4,378 22  ST. MARTIN  Primary  795,201  182  4,369

23  JANVRIN

24  LA MOYE

25  D'AUVERGNE

26  GROUVILLE

27  FIRST TOWER

28  DE LA SALLE SECONDARY 29  BEAULIEU SECONDARY 30  JCG

31  VICTORIA COLLEGE

32  FCJ CONVENT

33  ST. MICHAEL'S

34  ST. GEORGE'S

35  BEAULIEU PRIMARY

36  DE LA SALLE PRIMARY

37  VC PREP

38  JCG PREP

Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Primary

Up to age 14 Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary

1,444,408  331  4,365 1,308,830  315  4,155 1,316,206  317  4,152 1,415,793  351  4,034 1,427,643  362  3,944 1,701,834  567  3,001 1,653,112  553  2,989 2,102,871  713  2,949 2,074,904  730  2,842 490,406  294  1,668 413,328  324  1,276 205,379  177  1,160 223,635  193  1,159 274,156  249  1,101 305,568  294  1,039 382,390  376  1,017

The next table includes central costs. The table above was provided by the Education Department, but upon analysis it was found that a number of costs were excluded.

These central costs' amount to £7,505,300 and represent a sizeable 7.5% chunk of the Education budget.

A breakdown of this figure is detailed in the Appendix at the back of this proposition. In order to allocate these costs, I have largely applied the Schools and Colleges Support Team (£1,587,400) by actual school as a breakdown is available.

Directorate/Secretarial,  policy  and  planning,  ICT  support,  finance  and  long-term sickness costs have been totalled (£4,603,400) and allocated to schools based on pupil numbers.

I have not included culture and lifelong learning, sport and leisure support teams, or local society grants/jèrriais (£1,314,500).

The taxpayer  cost  of  educating  a  pupil  at  Grainville  of  £7,956  compares  with  a taxpayer cost at Beaulieu of £2,989. This represents a subsidy of just 37.56% of the taxpayer cost.

The taxpayer cost of educating a pupil at Grands Vaux of £6,060 compares with a taxpayer cost at De La Salle Primary of £1,101. This represents a subsidy of just 18.17% of taxpayer cost.

Taxpayer costs including some central costs.

Total Total Taxpayer Taxpayer Cost per Funding Pupil

1 GRAINVILLE

2 HAUTLIEU

3 BEL ROYAL

4 HAUTE VALLÉE

5 ST. SAVIOUR

6 ST. CLEMENT

7 LE ROCQUIER

8 LES QUENNEVAIS

9 GRANDS VAUX

10 ROUGE BOUILLON

11 ST. MARY

12 SAMARÈS

13 ST. LUKE

14 LES LANDES

15 MONT NICOLLE

16 TRINITY

17 ST. LAWRENCE

18 ST. JOHN

19 SPRINGFIELD

20 ST. PETER

21 PLAT DOUET

22 ST. MARTIN

23 JANVRIN

24 LA MOYE

25 D'AUVERGNE

26 GROUVILLE

27 FIRST TOWER

28 JCG

29 VICTORIA COLLEGE

30 DE LA SALLE SECONDARY 31 BEAULIEU SECONDARY 32 FCJ CONVENT

33 VC PREP

34 JCG PREP

35 ST. MICHAEL'S

36 ST. GEORGE'S

37 BEAULIEU PRIMARY

38 DE LA SALLE PRIMARY

Secondary Secondary Primary Secondary Primary Primary Secondary Secondary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Primary Primary Primary

Up to age 14 Primary Primary Primary

4,407,901 7,956 4,761,392 7,085 1,101,202 6,926 4,727,686 6,640 1,093,412 6,394 1,116,973 6,383 5,619,516 6,244 5,056,486 6,129 896,894 6,060 2,090,356 5,922 847,364 5,764 1,152,067 5,460 903,084 5,312 831,093 5,227 868,925 5,203 816,888 5,170 859,318 5,146 862,130 5,101 910,701 5,088 869,001 4,994 1,539,264 4,810 873,787 4,801 1,587,330 4,796 1,444,844 4,587 1,453,083 4,584 1,567,351 4,465 1,583,951 4,376 2,410,737 3,381 2,390,111 3,274 1,701,834 3,001 1,653,112 2,989 490,406 1,668 432,514 1,471 544,743 1,449 413,328 1,276 205,379 1,160 223,635 1,159 274,156 1,101

There is a danger under the current system of Government that significant policy changes will be made by an individual elected by a district or parish rather than by the Council of Ministers or the States Assembly. Without the checks and balances that were proposed in Clothier, it is important to move significant policy decisions away from the personal preferences of an individual and back to the States Assembly.

Within this Report I shall endeavour to briefly cover the issues raised through the proclaimed policy of the current Minister, Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen , and the policy  developed  within  his  education  silo.  There  are  a  number  of  issues  to  be addressed.

1. The importance  of  offering  faith-based  education  to as  many  students  as possible.
2. The success of an education system whereby over 40% of parents contribute extra to educational costs.
3. The importance  of  examining  the  effects  on  disposable  incomes  during economic downturns, and in particular the impact on fee-paying parents who have witnessed significant increases in fees over recent years.
4. The cost  of  university  funding  in light  of  UK  changes  to the  costs  of university education.
5. The impact on the faith-based schools and the risk that a high transfer rate to fully funded schools will have a negative financial impact.
6. The concept of announcing a significant change in education policy prior to the implementation of consultation through a Green Paper, and the damage to the reputation of the Government.
7. The weakness of a Government whereby Ministers have the power to make significant changes to long-term successful policy without reference to the States Assembly, and without consultation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The importance of offering faith-based education to as many students as possible.

In terms of examining the importance of Catholic educational provision, I have looked at evidence available from Australia and the USA. The reason for this is that it is difficult to find studies based on the Jersey education system. Over the years, a body of scholarly evidence from these countries has accumulated showing that Catholic schools have not only excellent academic results overall, but also a peculiar ability to help disadvantaged students. In the 1980s, the eminent sociologist James Coleman found  that  Catholic  schools,  more  than  public  schools,  were  generating  similar achievement  results  among  different  types  of  students.  A  decade  later,  other researchers reported similar results, finding that Catholic schools were somehow able to "simultaneously achieve relatively high levels of student learning [and] distribute this learning more equitably with regard to race and class than in the public sector.". And in more recent years, many other researchers have continued to find Catholic- school benefits (especially for at-risk students), including higher test scores, improved high-school graduation rates, and higher rates of college attendance. Catholic schools, in other words, somehow manage to narrow the "achievement gap.".

There are several explanations for this phenomenon. It appears that neither curriculum nor pedagogy is the principal reason Catholic schools achieve remarkable success with disadvantaged children. Rather, they note, it is because these schools are staffed by adults who believe unquestioningly that all children can and must learn, regardless of income, status, or race. Equally important is these adults' sense of responsibility and their determination to improve the lives of their students. The "soft bigotry of low expectations," prevalent in many troubled schools, has no place in Catholic education.

Of course, many aging Baby Boomers' who attended parochial schools might point to another of Catholic schooling's distinctive features. They likely recall memorization, recitation,  a  tightly-ordered  school  day,  lectures  on  diligence,  and,  most  of  all, discipline. Indeed, few would likely describe their childhood schools as the idealized learning environment embraced by today's progressive educators, where instruction is "student centered", where children can "explore", and where routine and repetition are abjured.  They  set  high  expectations,  and  pursue  academic  achievement  for  all students, regardless of background, with a secular religious zeal. They teach their disadvantaged students reading and maths, but they also teach them essential life skills that could help lift them up the ladder of life – skills like hard work, determination, and personal discipline.

The  major  problem  facing  Catholic  schools  in  Jersey  is –  how  can  schools  with increasing  costs  survive  when  they  should  serve  low-income  students  yet  rely increasingly on tuition fees and private contributions for income? Without a reliable stream  of  funding  that  is  commensurate  with  expenses,  accessibility  to  Catholic education by low-income families will reduce leading to a poorer educated and more divided society.

The Proposition proposes a Service Level Agreement (SLA) – a recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee in respect of States grants. What this SLA should include is a stipulation regarding the amount of funds that must be set aside for bursaries to assist lower-income parents. This may indeed lead to slightly higher fees for those that can afford to pay, but we must have a system in place that is as inclusive as possible. My obvious fear is that by slashing the grant now, the provision of bursary funding will fall centrally to the taxpayer rather than be the responsibility of the individual school. By giving certainty over grant funding, schools can plan for the future and ensure that bursary funding is correctly allocated and budgeted for.

Many  of  the  people  associated  with  Catholic  schools  will  explain  that  they  are motivated not by an obligation to evangelize, but by a desire to fulfil their faith's longstanding commitment to service. Among them, an unofficial creed has slowly emerged: "We don't serve these students because they are Catholic, we serve them because  we  are  Catholic."  Regardless  of  one's  position  on  public  support  for religiously affiliated entities, it is difficult not to acknowledge that these schools are fully engaged in the noble vocation of public service and social justice. The challenge now is to clear the way for public support of that vocation.

Empirical  evidence  in  the  United  States  and  Australia  indicates  that  education performance and attendance are greater in Catholic schools in contrast to its public counterparts. Evans and Schwab (1998) in their experiment found that attendance at Catholic schools in the United States increases the probability of completing high school  or  commencing  college  by  13%.  Similarly,  an  experiment  conducted  by Williams and Carpenter (1990) of Australia through comparing previous examination

by private and public schools concluded that students in private education outperform those from government schools on all educational, social and economic indicators.

Catholic schooling has indicated a large impact in the changing role of women for countries such as Malta and Japan. Catholic schooling of girls in Malta, for example indicates: "...evidence of remarkable commitment to the full development of girls in a global society.".

Similarly, all girls' schools in Japan have also contributed powerfully to the "personal and educational patriarchal society".

"Community is at the heart of all Catholic education, not simply as a concept to be taught, but as a reality to be lived . . . Your students will learn to understand and appreciate the value of community as they experience love, trust, and loyalty in your school and educational programs, and as they learn to trust all persons as brothers and sisters created by God and redeemed by Christ."

Pope John Paul II

2. The  success  of  an  education  system  whereby  over  40%  of  secondary school parents contribute extra to educational costs.

For years the Jersey public have basked in the knowledge that academic results from Jersey pupils were superior to their UK counterparts. Yet these proclamations have come under increasing scrutiny and it is now apparent that the better performance can be attributed to Jersey's unique system – a system whereby over 40% of parents contribute towards secondary education costs.

There is no doubt that the fee-paying schools are performing well and offering the taxpayer outstanding value for money. Education costs without the fee-paying sector would be significantly higher and it could be argued that taxes would need to rise to fund it. Furthermore it would be difficult to argue that an education provision based solely around public sector funding would achieve similar results.

This  Proposition  acknowledges  the  fact  that  by  maintaining  the  grant/subsidy  at realistic levels the schools can budget with certainty – safe in the knowledge that any policy change has to come back to the States Assembly.

The 40% funding level is important – as it allows the schools to expand their bursary allocations – opening up the schools to a wider catchment and providing a more encompassing faith-based education model.

It is strange that, at a time where we have introduced offers of free private nursery provision for all regardless of wealth – despite there being no educational benefit to the majority of those of middle or high incomes – that we seek to penalise parents wishing to give a faith-based education to their offspring. Perhaps what is required is a little more honesty as to why the expensive taxpayer-funded schools are shunned by so many  parents.  Perhaps  we  should  be  looking  at  reducing  public  sector  school management in line with the following philosophy.

"On school choice we must look to the US

The  State  Senate  of  Indiana  has  approved  the  largest  voucher

programme to be seen in America.

Daily Telegraph – 27th April 2011

One of the most powerful ideas in education reform is the "voucher". At present, the Government spends more than £5,000 per year on average for a child in a state school (more for secondary schools, less for primary schools). With a "voucher", parents could choose to take that money and spend it on a place in a private school. Parents would gain a much greater range of choice overnight, and research suggests that greater choice leads to better results. This is the evidence from Sweden, which has served as the inspiration for Michael Gove's free schools.

These arguments have been winning the debate in America for several years. Last  Thursday,  the  State  Senate  of  Indiana  approved  the  largest  voucher programme to be seen in the US so far. The programme is geared towards families on lower incomes. It will eventually allow 62 per cent of all families in Indiana to take their public funds to a private school if they so choose. The Government will pick up the tab on a sliding scale depending on each family's income, with the poorest eligible for 90 per cent of their school's fees.

Indiana's  Governor,  Mitch  Daniels,  explained  the  reforms:  "If  you're  a moderate or low-income family and you've tried the public schools for at least a year and you can't find one that works for your child, you can direct the dollars we were going to spend on your child to the non-government school of your choice. That's a social justice issue to me."

The  Indiana  reforms  follow  hot  on  the  heels  of  the  renewal  of  a  school voucher programme in the District of Columbia, which has helped thousands of  disadvantaged  children  get  a  decent  education  that  they  would  not otherwise have received.

England has the same need for radical reform. Last year, only 30.9 per cent of children from poorer backgrounds (measured by eligibility for free school meals) achieved five good GCSEs, compared to 58.5 per cent of children not in receipt of free school meals. That makes it all the more surprising that the Government  has  set  its  face  against  something  similar  in  England.  In February, Nick Clegg was the latest Minister to declare that "while we are opening up diversity of provision, there will be no for-profit providers in our publicly funded schools system". But school choice is a social justice issue here too. England would do well to follow Indiana's lead."

3. The importance of examining the effects on disposable incomes during economic downturns, and in particular the impact on fee-paying parents who have witnessed significant increases in fees over recent years.

What many politicians, members of the public, and Hay evaluation obsessed Chief Officers (who stand to personally benefit from increasing the payroll under their control)  fail  to  appreciate  is  that  the  fee-paying  parents  have  been  subject  to significantly  increasing  contributions  whilst  simultaneously  coping  with  GST  and 20 means 20 income tax rises.

Attached is a spreadsheet containing the Beaulieu fees, Index of Average Earnings and the RPI for the period 1996 – 2010.

I've also produced 2 plots in which I've converted each of the above to indices set to 100 at a common starting point.

Figure 1 – period 1996 – 2010

Figure 2 – period 2006 – 2010.

Over  the  period  from  1996  to  2010,  Beaulieu  fees  went  up,  on  average,  by 2 percentage points per year more than Earnings and by 3 percentage points per year above the RPI.

This is a significant increase in the real inflation-adjusted cost of education over a relatively short period. This is at a time of increasing taxation and the rising cost of saving for university funding.

Over latest 4 year period, from 2006 and 2010: Beaulieu fees went up, on average, by almost 3 percentage points per year above both Earnings and the RPI.

Full details of the calculation are detailed at the end of the Proposition.

In monetary terms, increases have been as follows (cost per term with total):

% Total

change

1996  620 1997  645 1998  695 1999  745 2000  820 2001  910

620  620 645  645 695  695 745  745 820  820 910  910

1,860

1,935  4.03  % 2,085  7.75  % 2,235  7.19  % 2,460  10.07  % 2,730  10.98  %

2002  990 2003  1,060 2004  1,110 2005  1,175 2006  1,210 2007  1,283 2008  1,360 2009  1,442 2010  1,529

990  990 1,060  1,060 1,110  1,110 1,175  1,175 1,210  1,210 1,283  1,283 1,360  1,360 1,442  1,442 1,529  1,529

2,970  8.79  % 3,180  7.07  % 3,330  4.72  % 3,525  5.86  % 3,630  2.98  % 3,849  6.03  % 4,080  6  % 4,326  6.03  % 4,587  6.03  %

Looking at projected increases as a result of the proposed reduction in grants we get the following bleak scenario from a parental prospective:

Proposed Increases

2011  2012 2012  2013 2013  2014 2014  2015 2015  2016

4,587

1,620.00  1,620.00  1,620.00  4,860.00  5.95  % 1,720.00  1,720.00  1,720.00  5,160.00  6.17  % 1,825.00  1,825.00  1,825.00  5,475.00  6.10  % 1,935.00  1,935.00  1,935.00  5,805.00  6.03  % 2,050.00  2,050.00  2,050.00  6,150.00  5.94  %

If you are a 20% taxpayer, to earn £6,150 after tax requires earnings of £7,700 without taking into account social security and the proposed increase in social security. Add to this the cost of uniforms and sundries – plus the requirement to put funds aside for university education – and you get a very bleak picture for many families on the average wage. Goodness knows how you afford 2 or 3 children.

From my point of view, over the years I have contributed significant sums to my children's education and will shortly have to fund their university funding – this will cost in excess of £30,000 per annum. How will parents be able to put aside money for university funding faced on the high school fees detailed above?

The Island is currently suffering an economic downturn. Financial services companies are  laying  off  staff,  retailers  are  losing  business  to  the  Internet,  and  the  global economy remains weak. Fiscal stimulus projects, whilst well-meaning, often benefit the imported labour sub-contracted to undertake the project.

Yet at a time when fiscal stimulus funding is relevant, we have a silo-based policy that looks  to  take  money  out  of  the  pockets  of  hard-working  local  parents –  thus decimating their disposable income to the detriment of the whole economy.

Where is the economic investigation of this policy? Where are the comments of the Economic Advisor or the Treasury? Has any work been undertaken or is this just another example of silo mentality to the detriment of the Island?

We are taking money out of the economy through higher GST and income tax. We are taking money out of the economy through higher social security. What disposable income will some families have after any cut in the grant?

4. The cost of university funding in light of UK changes to the costs of university education.

The  previous  sub-heading  commented  on  the  possible  future  need  for  parents  to increase their contributions to university education.

Details  of  the  changes in  the  UK  are included in Appendix 2  at the  end  of  this proposition.

I have 2 daughters – one at York University and the youngest is due to start her course at Oxford University in October. My wife and I made it clear from the start that we would only fund their future education if it was a worthwhile degree at a decent university.

The cost of funding their further education is in excess of £110,000 – paid without any taxpayer assistance. Fortunately we budgeted for this over the years – assisted by the 50% grant paid to cover their secondary school education, and 25% grant to subsidize their primary schooling.

With fees looking to increase to over £6,000 per annum, per child, I doubt that university budgeting would be possible and I'm not sure what the final outcome would be.

Yet no consideration of this has been taken into account. We have an education system that offers free nursery day-care to everyone – which is of questionable benefit to most social-economic classes, yet they are content with a system that may preclude the more gifted from a university education because of the financial circumstances of their parents.

5. The impact on the faith-based schools and the risk that a high transfer rate to fully funded schools will have a negative financial impact.

This is an important consideration.

At what point does this policy change actually have a detrimental effect on overall taxpayer funding. Initial discussions were based on parental choice – by how much can we squeeze the parents before they move their child to a school 100% funded by the taxpayer? At what point do they decide that the funds utilised in contributing to education could be better utilised elsewhere?

Of  course  we  have  to  add  another  and  more  salient  fact.  In  these  times  of redundancies, pay-cuts, and increased taxation, many parents will simply not have a choice – regardless of their desire for faith-based education.

And this is one area where a co-ordinated policy is required – rather than solution designed for the benefit of one department without seeking to ascertain the economic and overall impact to the Island.

6. The concept of announcing a significant change in education policy prior to the implementation of consultation through a green paper, and the damage to the reputation of the Government.

The Education Department announced in 2009 that they would produce a Green Paper on the future of education, and I reproduce below the written answer to a question by Senator J.L. Perchard on 30th November, 2010 –

Question

When was it first agreed that a Green Paper on the future of education should be produced, who is undertaking the work, what are their terms of reference and when does the Minister expect to publish the results?

Answer

It was agreed in 2009 that a Green Paper should be produced on the future of education. This document will be the outcome of a series of policy reviews commissioned early in 2009, shortly after my appointment as Minister for Education, Sport and Culture, and which are now either complete or nearing completion.

The work on the Green Paper is being carried out by my department, with support from external advisers as necessary. This important document will provide a strategic review of the entire education system that will look at all options.

The scope of the consultation will include the following:

- Vocational provision for 14-19 year olds

- Responding to the Skills agenda

- Special Needs

- Social Inclusion

- Funding of higher education

- Primary and secondary curriculum and the organisation of schools

- Secondary education – a review of options, including opportunities at sixth form level.

These issues are interrelated and the Green Paper will adopt a strategic approach aimed at setting the overall shape of Jersey's education system for the future. This major consultation will be launched early next year allowing all stakeholders to actively participate in determining the future shape of education on the Island.

I hope as many as possible will contribute to the public consultation so that we  can  deliver  an  education  system  that  meets  the  needs  of  all  people, regardless of ability or background. A White Paper will follow this to allow for further comment before a final decision is made by the States in 2012.

As can be seen, a Green Paper seeking consultation on issues such as private school funding will be followed by a White Paper next year.

Yet we have had the pronouncement that there will be savage cuts to private school grants before the consultation period has even begun. Perhaps we should apply to the Oxford English dictionary for a new definition of consultation based on the Jersey Government's understanding, i.e. something that takes place to placate the electorate after a decision affecting them has already been made.

Schools have already written to, and had meetings with, parents explaining the fee increases. Pupils have already been withdrawn and parents have been driven to tears. Fees are due to go up in September 2011 – the White Paper will be published in 2012!

7. The weakness of a Government whereby Ministers have the power to make significant changes to long-term policy without reference to the States Assembly, and without consultation.

This is a core problem of Ministerial Government. The policy of a silo is dependent on the Minister at the helm of that silo rather than the Government.

This is probably best summed up by recounting a recent conversation I had with a member of the public. When asked what would happen with the old Odeon building my reply was as follows –

"It depends on who becomes the next Planning Minister – for example if Deputy Kevin Lewis is the new Minister it will be saved, if Senator Perchard takes over at Planning it will be knocked down."

In this example the policy is not down to the Government, indeed the Council of Ministers have no power to go against the decision of the Minister (a very important part of the Clothier recommendation that was somehow excluded), it is down to the individual elected to a position by the States Assembly.

And this may be the biggest weakness of the CSR process. If 9 Ministers all go back to their silos and are asked to make savings – and all nine come back with policies aimed at the same socio-economic group (i.e. the middle-income earners), and no work is undertaken on the consequences of this action, then economic failure and political unrest become a certainty.

Many of these parents have already seen deterioration in their financial circumstances over recent years. The Government should not squeeze them dry because it cannot co- ordinate and look at policy effect on a macro level.

In Conclusion

Can we afford to continue to fund faith-based private schools at current levels?

There's  a  word  missing  from  the  question –  it  should  be  "can  we  afford  not  to continue funding faith-based private schools?"

If parents stop investing their money in their children's education and pull them out of independent schools because of lack of government support, taxpayers will face a massive increase in education funding. It costs governments much more to educate a student in a government school than it does to fund a pupil at a non-government school, because parents are paying, over and above their taxes, a share of the cost.

Funding  for  private  schools  is  not  welfare  or  a  gift.  It's  a  payment  for  services provided – a modest top-up of fees contributed by parents. Modest because, if passed, Jersey's faith-based schools will get 60% of their income from parents in terms of secondary education, and 75% in respect of primary education.

Punishing parents, who sacrifice their after-tax earnings, by ripping money out of faith-based schools, will not make the education funding pool any larger. It will disadvantage  significant  sectors  of  the  community  who  choose  schools  that meet religious and cultural needs and provide different educational philosophies.

Non-government schools are an important part of Jersey's education system. Vigorous debate about school funding is welcome, but over-simplification of the issue, using inaccurate  information  and  repetitive  sloganeering,  will  not  help  the  consultation process design a fair, transparent and sustainable model linked to students' needs. By giving certainty of funding we can ensure better financial planning and, through the expansion of the bursary system, the embracing of a wider cross-section of society.

Arguments based on political philosophy or personal belief systems only cloud the issues. We can do better than that by uniting to demand that the government provides money for the education of children whoever they are and wherever they go to school.

Financial and manpower implications

The whole thrust of this proposition is that there should be no knee-jerk reactions to the need to cut expenditure, and that each cut should be carefully considered.

By  sending  out  the  message  that  the  grants  should  be  maintained  pending  more analysis, the proposer is not advocating cuts elsewhere to compensate.

We should, as a Government, await the full publication of the White Paper before we slash education funding. In effect, the financial implication is that the grant to the Education Department should be increased to take into account the lost cuts. This can be  achieved  through  a  higher  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 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.

If we get this wrong, it will not be the children of the rich that will suffer, as their parents will be able to afford fees at any levels – and class sizes may well reduce. It will be the children denied a place through a lack of bursary funding or because their middle-income parents cannot afford to give their offspring the faith-based education that they desire. And with a limited budget, a meaningful transfer to non-fee-paying schools will result in higher class sizes, an increasing strain on resources, and lower educational standards. I want fee-based education to become more inclusive, not more elitist.

Additional Notes – Funding in other countries

In the Netherlands, parents of groups of 100 children or more can set up private schools (including church schools) that receive a diversion of taxes from state schools. In Sweden, a voucher system exists so that, if parents wish their children to go to private schools, including faith-based schools, 75% of the cost of state education is paid to the private school. The US has been a bastion of state-provision and control in education. But even many US states, spurred on by dreadful educational outcomes, are taking the control of education out of the hands of politicians and giving responsibility to the community and to families. Economists and social scientists are investigating various educational projects where, in a spirit of solidarity, the state provides finance but, in a spirit of subsidiarity, the state only assists parents and gets out of the driving seat. In the UK, proposals have been made to allow parents a right to redirect the funding spent on the child's education from a state school to the educator of the parents' choice.

APPENDIX 1(b)

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE BY SENATOR B.E. SHENTON

ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 3rd MAY 2011

Question

"Would the Minister provide full details regarding how the Education budget has been allocated on a school by school basis, including fee paying schools receiving grants, together  with  details  of  the  average  number  of  students  attending  each  of  these schools,  ensuring  that  the  cash  figures  reconcile  with  the  total  budget  that  his department has allocated to Education, and that the pupil numbers reconcile with the average total number of students in full time education during the period (using figures for the educational year September 2010 to August 2011 rather than the financial year if he so wishes)?"

Answer

The proportion of the Education, Sport and Culture budget allocated to Education is shown in Appendix A, attached. It shows that over 86% of the total ESC budget is directly related to students, whether in pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary or fee- paying education establishments.

As can be seen from the details on student numbers, Education, Sport and Culture funds more than 13,000 students in full time education in schools and over 11,000 in various  other  areas,  such  as  further  and  higher  education,  pre-school  provisions, special schools, instrumental music and adult education.

Tables  showing  the  funding  to  each  provided  school  are  shown  in  Appendix B. Student numbers are based on the September 2010 pupil census which is used to determine the funding for each school for 2011.

Tables showing the allocation to grant funded private schools can be found on the second page of Appendix B.

Reconciliations to the figures contained within the 2011 Annual Business Plan are included in Appendix B showing any adjustments for changes in student numbers, staffing terms and conditions and overhead allocations as required for the business plan.

Overhead allocations, such as central departmental services, including directorate; finance; insurance; long term sickness and maternity cover; training, development and monitoring; ICT replacement and wide area network costs etc are allocated to schools and other areas of the service based on various factors, including total budget, staff costs, premises areas, financial transactions processed and student numbers. Details of the amount allocated to each area are shown in Appendix A, reconciling the direct budgets provided to each are to the total figures shown in the 2011 Business Plan.

APPENDIX 2

University Funding Requirements

From September 2012, universities in England will be allowed to raise tuition fees to up to £9,000 per year, amid major budget cuts to institutions' teaching budgets.

The controversial policy, backed by parliament in December 2010, sparked angry street protests. It was developed as the government's response to a review of higher education funding by former BP chief, Lord Browne.

How much?

The  government  is  allowing  universities  to  charge  up  to  £9,000  per  year  for undergraduate courses, raising the cap from its current level of £3,290.

Universities wanting to charge more than £6,000 will have to undertake measures, such as offering bursaries, summer schools and outreach programmes, to encourage students from poorer backgrounds to apply.

This access agreement will have to be approved by the Office for Fair Access. How will students pay the fees?

The government will lend students the money for fees, which will be paid back when they graduate and begin working. The fees will not have to be paid up-front.

The threshold at which graduates have to start paying their loans back will rise from £15,000 to £21,000. This will rise annually with inflation.

Each month graduates will pay back 9% of their income above that threshold.

The subsidised interest rate at which the repayments are made – currently 1.5% – will be raised. Under a "progressive tapering" system, the interest rate will rise from 0 for incomes of £21,000, to 3% plus inflation (RPI) for incomes above £41,000.

If the debt is not cleared 30 years after graduation, it will be wiped out. What will happen to grants and loans?

Maintenance grants are set to rise from £2,906 to £3,250 for students from households earning less than £25,000.

But partial grants will only be available to students from households with incomes of £42,000, instead of the current cut-off point of £50,000.

Means-tested  loans  will  continue.  While  loan  amounts  have  been  increased,  the threshold for those receiving the most generous ones has been lowered from £50,000 to about £42,000.

What is the long-term cost?

Students taking three-year courses charged at £6,000 will leave university with about £30,000 of debt – if fees go up to £9,000, debts will be closer to £38,000.

The government says the lowest-earning 25% of graduates will pay less than they currently do. But most others will pay more – the highest earners almost double what they currently pay.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that, for about half of graduates, the plan is essentially a 9% graduate tax for 30 years, because they will not finish paying off the debt by the 30 year cut-off point.

Assuming  fees  of  £7,500  for  a  three-year  degree,  plus  maintenance  loans,  its modelling  shows  that  the  top  10%  of  graduate  earners  will  clear  their  debts,  on average, in about 15 years. But a middle-earning graduate would need to earn, for example, an average of £48,850 a year for 26 years to pay off their debt.

The IFS also says about 10% of graduates will pay back, in total, more than they borrowed.

Is there any extra support for students from low-income families?

Universities wanting to charge more than £6,000 will have to set out measures to recruit more students from poorer backgrounds – and also to support them when they are studying. This will take the form of means-tested bursaries and fee waivers, with each university offering its own individual scheme.

When will the proposals take effect?

September 2012. Students applying in 2011 who defer entry to 2012 will have to pay the increased fees. But students who have begun their courses before 2012 will not be affected in their later years of study.

Will universities get more money?

Universities argue that much of the money raised from raising tuition fees will simply replace major cuts to teaching budgets, especially in arts and humanities subjects.

Teaching grant cuts of 6% for 2011–12 have already been announced, with a further 16%  reduction  the  following  year –  although  by  then  universities  will  be  getting income from raised fees. Teaching-related capital funding for universities has also taken a hit – 54% in 2011–12.

Cuts of 40% to the higher education budget over the next four years were announced in the spending review on 20th October 2010.

How are universities funded?

In the UK as a whole, income from fees – including fees paid directly by students such as postgraduates and overseas students – makes up about 29% of universities' total funding, which was £25.4 billion in 2008/09.

Another 35% comes from government funding bodies, while the rest comes from other sources such as research grants, endowments and investments.

In England, the balance of funding is going to change – with much of the cost of university courses switching from the taxpayer to the student.

What does the proposal mean for the rest of the UK? Scotland does not charge Scott ish students fees.

Students from elsewhere in the UK currently have to pay £1,820 per year to study at Scott ish universities.

The Welsh Assembly has announced that fees will rise to £6,000 to £9,000, as in England, but the government will meet the extra cost to Welsh students studying at any UK university. Funding for universities in Wales has been cut by 12%.

A review of the system in Northern Ireland is under way – it initially suggested maintaining the current fee cap, but the conclusion is now being reviewed.