This Is Guernsey

By Nick Mann

NASUWT local secretary Caroline Bowker says the review offers no answers to the questions that it raises. (0519539)

PEOPLE feel almost cheated by the results of the education management review, according to one teaching union representative.

Since its release on Friday, Dr Trevor Robinson’s investigation has drawn a mixed reaction. Civil servant union Prospect and the department have taken it as a vindication of the work done by management, but critics have called it a whitewash.

NASUWT local secretary Caroline Bowker said the results of the review had caused concern.
‘All in all, I, like many others, feel almost cheated by the outcome of the review and its lack of clarity but I certainly hope that it will lead to significant and necessary changes which will enable those at the sharp end to continue the good work with our children and to feel valued and supported,’ she said.

She was deeply disappointed that the review raised questions but answered none.

‘I have to question the value of spending many thousands of pounds for someone to ask questions that have been asked by many of those involved in Education over the past years. Indeed, those self-same questions which led to the call for a review of the department to take place.’

The review cost over £40,000 and produced an 11-page report.

It was launched by the Policy Council only under threat of a requete led by Deputy Jean Pritchard and signed by more than half the House.

‘I was very disappointed to hear Deputy Pritchard say that she has given up, but sadly I can understand why.

‘The review does nothing to dispel the view that no one wants to address issues but simply to hide behind excuses.

‘This time the excuse is the fact that we are reaching the end of term for a tired Education Department,’ said Miss Bowker.

‘If, as Dr Robinson states “carrying on as now cannot be a sound basis for success”, why do we wait for a new board to make decisions?

‘Surely it is incumbent on those who know which “aspects of the present structure and the present ways of operating are not tenable in the longer term” to ensure that steps are taken to change. How long will it take a new board to establish the facts and decide which actions have not yet been tried?

‘Do the children of our island not deserve to see action taken more quickly than that?’

A statement in the review that key staff and the department had been subject to intense scrutiny over recent years amazed her.

‘The teachers have been calling for the establishment of a similar scrutiny or inspection to that which schools undergo and I am surprised that if the department was truly undergoing effective scrutiny, we were not party to the results of that scrutiny so that we could be reassured that there was no need for further examination.’

She added that it was surprising a department that repeatedly reminded teachers of their entitlement to be evaluated was loath to subject itself to the same regime.

Miss Bowker welcomed Dr Robinson’s recommendation that this should be considered, but not the suggested ‘two- or three-year delay to allow people to get on with their jobs.

‘I am sure that senior officers at the department would disagree since they insisted that St Peter Port School be inspected, despite its imminent closure so that, they said, the staff would feel reassured of their successes before they moved on to pastures new.’

Article posted on 6th March, 2008 - 2.29pm