‘Means-test to share the college cash’
Wednesday 21st September 2011, 1:00PM BST.
THE level of States support for every senior pupil at the colleges will be individually means-tested if an amendment is approved.
The Policy Council has proposed that the current system of funding Elizabeth College, the Ladies’ College and Blanchelande continues for the next seven years with the amount of States support being reduced over that time by, eventually, £1.1m. a year.
But Deputy Jan Kuttelwascher (pictured) backs one of the options rejected by the Policy Council.
He wants a new lump sum bursary grant to be paid, with Education and the colleges developing criteria for how much each pupil receives.
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
I’m With you there Jan. Sounds fare, and also common sense to me.
Report abuse
Interesting idea. According to the print article this would replace both the scholarship system and the existing grant.
The number of grants at each level (e.g. £2k, £4k, £6k) would be fixed, and the criteria for awarding them would take into account both 11+ results and financial means.
I assume it would work something like this: All candidates would be ranked by some kind of points system where most points are gained by having low income, no capital assets, and high 11+ results. The candidates would then be awarded grants according to where they fall in this ranking: the highest grants to the top section of the list, then the 2nd level goes to the next section and so on. The bottom section of the list (rich, thick kids) would get nowt.
The 11+ would not be a cut-off any more – it would just be one factor in determining the fees you have to pay. Basically it’s a much more nuanced version of the scholarship system.
Could Deputy Kuttelwascher confirm this is right?
I’m not a fan of means testing in general. It seems to me it’s generally easier (and a lot cheaper) to hike income tax, so the rich pay for everything through that route. I’m also not a fan of giving Education anything more to run than they do at the moment because they seem to make a total pig’s ear of everything, especially admissions.
But in terms of wringing as much cash out of the rich as possible without so much risk of tipping everyone into the States sector, this proposal has some appeal.
Report abuse
Income on its own is not a fair assessment of an individuals wealth. Equity testing is a much fairer measure of wealth these days. Why should Joe down the road whose parents have a low income but inherited their huge house be paid for whilst Rosie whose parents have a higher income but up to the eyeballs in debt in their modest home, have to pay more?
Report abuse
As a high earner but max debt on the one hand happy that the 2 scholarships my kids earned themselves are outside this given the quality of education is superb but would certainly not have paid for them given I would probably forking out 10k a year. The taxpayer would be picking up the full tab at grammar but guess some other parent who may be happy to pay 2k
Maybe grammar should be means tested if the cost of education is greater per student than at the high schools?
Having to fork out when they go to uni also I personally believe any payments towards education should come with a tax relief
Report abuse
Its all very well – but lets have an answer to just one question.
Why should I a tax-payer have my tax monies used to send students to a PRIVATE school, when I pay for High schools for students to attend.
When I want private health care – no-one gives me a subsidy, when I want a private jet – no-one gives me a subsidy.
I do NOT want to subsidise the education of a group of students whose parents feel that their child is too good for the local high school. Neither do I want to subsise PRIVATE educational institutions to provide that education.
Anyone tell me why I should?
Report abuse
St Martins Man – I assume you’ve not been following this debate and therefore don’t understand how the system works – do try to keep up!
The colleges do not provide a “private” education in the UK sense. They form part of the system of education in Guernsey along with Grammer and the high schools.
The fee payers actually save you and other tax payers money. If the colleges shut tomorrow you’d end up paying more tax to cover the shortfall.
ChrisJ – if a child is “thick” as you put it they won’t get in regardless of background. Standards and all that!
Report abuse
You’ve put it in a nutshell St Martin’s Man but the old school tie network in and around States circles is much too strong to prevent the situation changing all that much. The letter to the press last week from a multi millionaire advocate and Old Elizbethan is the latest galling example of their determination to hang on to their taxpayer subsidies. Best of luck to Deputies Hadley and Kuttlewascher though.
Report abuse
Gilthead,
Twas a knowing parody of Michael Gove, I think you’ll find:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jul/28/gove-academies-rich-thick-kids
Do try to keep up!
Report abuse
ChrisJ – different system old fruit. Do try to keep up!
For the record I don’t think the current 11+ system is good at all – but by tinkering around here and there won’t actually solve any of the issues.
Martino – See my post above to St Martins Man – the current situation actually saves you some dosh. Whilst utterly pompous the letter you allude to clearly states the situation. Like it or not.
Millions have been thrown at St Sampsons High and all that investment has provided what? Continued poor results.
The colleges aren’t the problem its the Education Department.
Report abuse
If you ask me I’d still pay as as current for the colleges as they produce excellent results and leaders of tomorrow. Will we also get loopholes where very wealthy but divorced parents for example get a full subsidy
I would cut the free money in university education which means so many people spend three years and considerable amounts of my taxes on useless pointless degrees. Most the cash goes on booze. Of course shock horror a petition will be signed by all students against this.
Report abuse
St Martin’s Man
Why should I a tax-payer have my tax monies used to send students to High schools, when I pay for a student to attend a private school?
There are plenty of wealthy parents with children at the Grammar and High schools getting a free education and free transport , whilst there are those worse off with children at the colleges paying for both. Is that fair ?
Why can’t we give everyone a means tested grant towards the education of their children wherever they want ….. and a means tested charge as well to even things out a bit at the other end …
Although for the record I am happy to pay the college fees, and if the current grant ( which I do not feel I have an automatic right to ) was removed, if the fees were still affordable I will carry on paying.
If they end up too high then you the taxpayer will be paying £5k – £7k a year to educate each of my children, not the £2k you do currently. But if it’s the principle involved, not the money, that bothers you then I’m sure that you wouldn’t mind …
Report abuse
Tony
You’re arguments are a bit silly. Societies have base services that are paid for out of taxation. Education being one of them and, in our neck of the woods, the BBC.
You can’t opt out becuase you make a consumer choice to send your children to a Private School. Like I can’t opt out of the TV licence because I use Sky; BBC licencing is on a statute.
“There are plenty of wealthy parents with children at the Grammar and High schools getting a free education and free transport , whilst there are those worse off with children at the colleges paying for both. Is that fair ?”
No one in the state schools gets a free education, it’s paid for through taxation. To answer your question though it is completley fair as you have elected not to use that state supplied service.
So please don’t worry too much about the principle as it’s based on a misunderstanding of how governments tax and what they supply for that taxation.
We are ‘means tested’ to a degree for state supplied services; those that earn more pay more ETI.
Report abuse
You’re certainly right about the pomposity of that letter writer Gilthead. If being utterly pompous was an an Olympic sport he’d be a shoe in for gold at London 2012.
Report abuse
Neil,
Of course Tony’s argument is silly – he was using it (I think) to make a rhetorical point about how silly St Martin’s Man’s argument is.
Your licence fee analogy is intriguing. Are you saying you think it would be unfair if the government put any part of the licence fee towards funding Sky?
Report abuse
Neil
I get what you are saying – so how about this ….
Abolish the 11 +
Give every student in Guernsey a £6K grant a year ( means tested ) towards their Education.
You can choose which school to attend.
That way those that can afford it can still send their kids to the colleges – but even more would be able to afford it than now.
The total cost to Education should go down because those who currently use the “free” places who can afford it won’t cost the taxpayer anything
There would be an incentive to improve the standards at the high schools – and by closing Grammar we’d gain a high school in town where one is needed.
Report abuse
Appaulling idea
Report abuse
St martins man
You are not subsidising private school..we the taxpayers are substantially better off financially that the obligation of educating 1200 students has been outsourced to the private sector at a net saving of probably around £2.5k per student. The parents of those children make up and exceed the amount needed to ensure a quality education and most wish the education department could provide the same standard of education so that there would be no need to go private.
We also outsource university education as we guernsey can not justify our own university and that will cost us or the parents via means test 9k p.a per student
Why are the states subsidising adult education in Guernsey? if they are looking for savings then this is the area we should be reducing funding to
Report abuse
It appears to me that there is far to much political rhetoric and not enough consideration of the true goal; The best education for our children. The question should be; Are we getting good value for money from the current system?
At approximately £2,000 p.a. per pupil, the colleges deliver outstanding value as demonstrated by their transparently published exam results. Were those children incorporated into the States school system the costs would be £7,000+ plus the central costs of the Education Department per pupil.
Ultimately I don’t think this is about finances, it is a politically motivated attack on the education system by those that would have us go down the comprehensive school system. When Education fix the deficiencies manifest in the High Schools, perhaps then we can have a proper debate on the relative merits of the schooling system.
Report abuse
Chris
Judging by recent reports it seems successive governments have supported Sky – politically; funding by the back door perhaps.
But in a straight up and down world, if Sky came knocking for grant funding the answer would be no.
Report abuse
SF
your arguement is flawed.
you know full well that all of the children in the colleges will never, ever go to the state run schools their parents would never allow it..Despite all the rubbish spouted by the pro colleges lobby there will not be a mass exodus from the colleges even if ALL funding was stopped. I have never believed that loads of parents at college are hard up because they pay school fees. Roughly a quarter of the pupils at E.C. and L.C. have all of the fees paid by the tax payer via the 11+.The average salary in Guernsey is between £27,000 and £30,000 depending on who you talk to. Nobody on an income of £30,000 will be paying £8,100 school fees per year and put a roof over their head e.t.c. The vast majority of parents who pay fees will have an income of over £50,000 so It’s the parents who eard between £30,000 and £50,000 per annum who struggle. you could argue that it is only these people who should get help although I would ask the question ” should tax payers money be given to people who want something they cannot afford? Surely it is up to the individual to increase their income.
PC
might I suggest that if after means testing you are going to pay £9,000 per year uni fees it would mean you have an income of £70,000 a year approx. and you think you should get help paying school fees?
What I find galling from all of the pro college lobby is that they cannot understand that they are CHOOSING to send their children to the colleges and therefore get little sympathy from the rest of the general puplic. A genuine A* student will be an A* student no matter which school they go to. What really hurts the fee payers is that reality is kicking in and they may just have to accept that they have been getting too good a deal for years and fees may have to rise a little. Big Deal!
Report abuse
kevin – your arguments are flawed and demonstrate total ignorance.
The colleges are part of the system.
The current funding saves you money.
There is no difference between an 11+ pass to one of colleges or Grammer.
The selective 11+ system is what you really seem to rile against – don’t get things mixed up, it doesn’t help.
Report abuse
p.s.
if the colleges lose the funding (£1.1m) it would mean fees would rise by £21.80p per week if the colleges refused to absorb any of the loss. Hardly likely to cause a stampede out of the colleges.
Report abuse
Kevin, you have a few valid points – but I would question you on the point that “if you are an A* pupil you will be an A* pupil wherever you go” – that’s all well and good, if you go to a school where you have a teacher prepared to actually teach and nurture your childs ability, as opposed to simply being crowd control monitor. It is very hard for some bright children to actually get the teaching they need at secondary schools when the rest of the class is playing up and the teacher has to deal with them all the time.
Report abuse
Kevin
A A* pupil will be an A* student whereever they go you say. Er, no they won’t – that is why the published results show LC massively outperforming the GS this year on A levels. They ought to do equally well – its down to teaching quality.
Report abuse
gilthead,
right here and now state where I have said anything about the virtues or otherwise of the 11+. Also expand on how I’ve shown “total ignorance.” You know what, on this website Ive been called ignorant, poor, (whatever that means)and envious, words like thick and undesirable have been used to describe pupils, all by the pro college lobby. i haven’t seen one single insult used by those advocating less funding.One thing is for sure private education in Guernsey may teach French, Maths e.tc. and even Latin but it obviously doen’t teach class because non of the pro funding people on this site most of whom, if not all are ex college have shown any.You have not challenged anything contained in my post that’s all the reply your gonna get because that’s all your post deserves.
sarnia expat
students in the high schools are placed in sets according to ability so the “crowd control” you alude to will not be needed. Unless you’re saying that the very students who do achieve the five gcse passes at a* to c are the “crowd ” who need to be controlled.
Report abuse
Kevin
My argument is that the issue of funding is being used as a cover for issues of doctrine. Playing politics with our children as the pawns. Not all of us can afford to send our children to the colleges and most, not surprisingly, choose to go with the mainstream school system.
The current system is finely balanced and takes account of the fact that Education pay for 23 placeholders in each of E.C. and L.C and a further 6 at Blanchelande. Is the Grammar School capable of absorbing a further 52 pupils without expansion, increased teacher numbers and a corresponding increase in ancillary costs? And in all likelyhood, the number will be higher than 52. That is 2 extra classes.
Reduced funding is likely to see a fee increase but even if were withdrawn totally, the colleges would continue, just without those intelligent kids from less fortunate backgrounds thereby increasing the social divide the current system tries to close.
On previous posts a 5 A*-C grade pass rate of 17% was suggested for one of the high schools. Compare this to the 100% at L.C. and we begin to see the real issues that need to be dealt with. As I said previously, if Education were to rectify that disparity, then perhaps we could all rest easy that our children were getting the standard of education they deserve. For now however, the £2,179 annual subsidy at the colleges seems fair value to me.
Report abuse
How would this means testing ever work? When you make your 11+ choices you have to prioritise your choices. If parents don’t know the Grant they are up for how will they do this?
I think this will lead to even more pressure on the Grammar School.
The means testing system, while it has many merits, will not work in this form as it is the middle man that will get squeezed as a £2,000 bursary may be useless to them if they cannot find the spare cash. Under the current system their child would have got a scholarship and now he is penalised because his parents cash-flow can’t accommodate the extra in fees.
If there was to be means testing the only sensible way would be to say anyone earning over £x or with assets over £x cannot gain a Sates funded place at the Colleges. This would be more transparent and fairer.
I hope the States think very carefully about their votes next week. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. The Colleges are integral to the system at very little cost (compared to the budget for Education as a whole). Why isn’t it being discussed that Education’s budget is also slashed by 25%? The whole thing has morphed out of FTP and is now an attack on 11+ and the Colleges.
Don’t make an expensive mistake next week, Deputies….
Report abuse
georgia,
a fairer comparison would be comparing LC results with just the girls results as we know girls outperform boys right. Are you saying all of the best teachers are at Ladies College?
Report abuse
re my post of sept 23rd at 1.25 p.m.
£21.80 is the rise in fees necessary to cover the proposed loss of £1.1m so the £21.80 would be spread out over four years. the rise in fees then for the first year would only be £5.45 per week.
Strange nobody has challenged me on this come on college lobby where are you?
Report abuse
Blinkin ‘eck kevin – you do take umbridge!
Read my post again carefully and then sensibly argue.
FYI I’m not an “Old Elizabethan” in fact an “Old Sampsonian” – but I tell you what kevin there wasn’t a snowballs chance that I was going to put my kids through the shambles that was my education.
The system is pants – but don’t treat the symptoms.
Report abuse
Because when they do address your questions Kevin you don’t hear it. All you hear is any perceived “insults”. Such as when I stated in a previous post that raising fees will make the colleges out of reach for poorer people, people like you? I could have easily said… people like me? Instead of getting the point you took it as a personal insult. In any case you are absolutely right to say what does “poor” really mean anyway… as many people who have high incomes can be poor based on many factors such as when they bought their first house and family circumstances and many persons on low incomes can be “rich” also based on personal circumstances such as if they inherited or receive a lot of family support etc.
You say that £21.80 per week isn’t that much… but think about people who are struggling and have multiple children. There will be a drop-out rate. How many will drop out is impossible to say… and as the Guernsey population is relatively limited by its small size (unlike the UK) if you assume that the “rich” already send their children to these schools then the places left by those who drop-out will not be refilled… so what will happen then? More fee rises and more drop-outs? Perhaps some people will rejoice if these schools collapse altogether.. but whether you agree with the system or not we are better off if they are kept alive.
Report abuse
Hang on a second – are there grants going to be reviewed every year to track each family’s changing circumstances?
Report abuse
Surely the logical ultimate conclusion of this suggestion is full means testing for all parents. if you are rich you have to contribute more for your childrens education and if you are poor you don’t.
This would also mean that tax-payers without children would no longer have to subsidise all other tax-payers’ childrens’ education.
Report abuse
Well said Rachel and Chris J.
We are in danger of requiring another 10.5 mandarins to administer the scheme, further swelling the ranks of those at the Education Department. We don’t need more civil servants!
Go back to basics and let the three Colleges do what they do best, educating to a great standard and offering a layer to the 11+ system. If these schools aren’t supported then we must rethink the whole education stategy on the island. And yet, this isn’t the debate that the politicians will have. They will discuss funding only as it has been snuck in through the back door through the FTP programme.
In business of you were getting good results you wouldn’t normally slash the budget by 25%. The island’s pass rate is only on a par with England because of these places. The High Schools have massive investment in them and still aren’t getting the results.
Risk damaging the Colleges and the achievement of the island as a whole will go down.
Report abuse
rachel,chrisj and penny.
please re read my post and hear it.
two fee paying children at the colleges an Extra £10.90 per week that’s what we are talking about not massive hikes like you are intimating and with respect if you can afford to pay over £16,000 per year for private education you aren’t gonna worry about an extra tenner a week . the pro college lobby have blown this out of all proportion with a lot of scare mongering.
reference the way you wrote your post rachel I don’t understand your motive for calling me poor as it highlights that in the main the pro college lobby do write a lot of insults on here. for the record i think that the states shouls INCREASE the amount of scholarships to the colleges to say 35 and means test the rest. Over £75,000 income and you get nothing. I am absolutely sure that there are more than 12 parents per year on more than £75,000 a year.Every time the funding of the colleges comes up getting rid of the scholarships is talked abou but I see no value in that surely the issue is those that can afford it should pay the going rate. One last thought it is a fact that a very large number of students from the colleges go to uni those feepayers who are on relatively low incomes will get more from the taxpayer as grants are means tested.
Report abuse
You are right ChrisJ – it wouldn’t be fair unless it was continually assessed every year due to a families changing circumstances. People change jobs, people change partners… are they going to monitor single parents and bring them in for reassessment if they start to live with a new partner or change partners and then means-test the new partner as well? Also if they take into account equity and childcare costs (due to lack of family support), as they should, are they going to continually reassess this as well? It wouldn’t be fair otherwise.
Also would it be an all or nothing approach or a sliding scale? A study will need to be undertaken by researchers in the field so that an outline of approximate cut-off mark can be established and then a sliding scale to be calculated specifically for Guernsey. Parents whose income is near some income cut off mark governed by this group of researchers (specific for Guernsey), pay 90%, then the next mark 80% and then the next mark 60% and so on… and of course this would go up and down every year for every single pupil and administered by a whole set of new staff at Education… What a logistical nightmare!
On another note, as Bronty states, why single out the colleges? That’s discrimination. Should apply to all schools. No free education for the children of “rich” people fullstop. Also why single out Education…. shouldn’t we apply means-testing to “rich” parents whose children use health services and enter hospital as a public patient? I’m sure there’s a whole list other publicly funded services for which we could means-test and charge “rich” parents for…. Or, as an alternative, we could all pay tax? Just a thought.
Report abuse
Kevin, I’m so sorry to think that you may be a “struggling” parent like myself. I’m so sorry to have insulted you in that way. Can we move on now?
You are right that 5.45 per week (your figures) per student doesn’t sound like much at first… but thats the start I suppose to ease parents into the increase. But it will end up being the higher figure which again for many parents will not be much at all… but it will for some – especially those with multiple children.. and together with the natural increases per year it will be the tipping point and enough to put some parents off the idea of the colleges. In an earlier post to another thread on topic I proposed the same as you – to increase the amount of scholarships, but make these to be governed by the colleges themselves through their own exams. This way these partial scholarships can be awarded to those top students who are already at the school but the school is in danger of loosing due to their family not being able to afford the fee hike.
I see that you give the figure of 75,000 as a cut off? I’d like you to go to a bank website and see how much you can borrow on that amount…. now think of a two income family with multiple children with childcare fees, no family support, not much in savings for a deposit, no inheritance and on that combined income and see how much money they would have left over after their mortgage repayments on a house in Guernsey then come back to me and call them “rich”. That is my whole argument.. you can’t call someone rich on income alone- not in this day and age.
Report abuse
Does this also mean that EC, LC and Blanchelande pupils whose parents could no longer afford or wish to keep them there would be considered/appraised for Grammar places?
Some incoming families can currently walk their kids directly into Grammar, despite having been at similar public schools to EC/LC in UK. Will the same consideration be given locally? Some of the existing fee-paid cohorts at the colleges would have been offered Grammar places to start with, but declined them in favour of the colleges.
If we are prepared to educate at Grammar, upon arrival, those children of licence holders that haven’t even sat an 11+, just for them to leave at the end of their 5 year licences; if we are prepared to move kids from Beaucamps/Les Nicolles/ La Mare to the Grammar, where those kids are performing strongly; then we should enable those kids at the colleges to move to Grammar if their performance is every bit as strong, particularly if we are moving the financial goalposts around.
Kevin – I assume this 1.1 million is in addition to the already agreed reduction between the colleges and Education. It will not take much of a tipping point to make the schools unaffordable, particularly as middle-income groups are being squeezed on a number of other fronts as well. Parents on £75k are not likely to get a Uni grant, so any expenditure on education wil be carefully weighed. The real effects will not be on kids already at the colleges, but on people making decisions about their children over the next few years. Rather than an exodus of current pupils, the colleges may find difficulty attracting new pupils.
Mine for instance would be 95% more likely to go to Grammar than the colleges as a result. Why should I fee-pay for a scholarship, when I can get a wholly free education at Grammar? I can then put the savings into a University funding plan for my kids, as they probably will not get grants.
I’m also intrigued as to how the Colleges will react – the liklihood is a blanket fee increase, which may mean that “poorer” fee paying families with kids at the colleges end up subsidising the wealthier, AND continuing to subsidise the state schools as well – unless they means-test the fees charged…If you really want elitism and privelege to be perpetuated in the most unfair way, then this really is one way to do it.
Report abuse
rachel
I am not a struggling parent like you but I have been. My sons are all grown up but I do know what it is like to struggle but you seem unable to differentiate between what is a need e.g. a roof over your head and b. what you may find desirable e.g. private education. I take your pount it is expensive to live here so you could have a good income but be cash poor. I pay what I think is a lot of tax but I can’t pick and choose where my tax goes some of it goes to help people who choose private education I don’t like that but what hasn’t been mentioned is the colleges will effectively be keeping some 75% of the funding they receive. As I’ve proved the increases in fees of £1.15p per school day if indeed there will be any are relatively small and spread over four years will not harm anyone.
Report abuse
Stepehn Fell
Your post 23 September 11.06pm is absolutey superb.
Thats the issue in a nutsell.
Sure others can argue costs per day etc etc, and accuse people of ignoring thier points whilst summarily ignorning everyone elses points, but in the end, in all boils down to the point in your posts that there is a fundamental flaw in our education system, so why are attacking the one part of it that produces results.
Lets fix the obvious flaws before we fiddle the the only bit that currently works, to do otherwise could bring the whole stack of cards down.
Report abuse
Finally Kevin, we are in agreement that income alone doesn’t determine your ability to pay – other things must be taken into account such as the humble roof over your head (which I am very much aware of thank you) and other factors which I have stated previously at length. So a person who makes a decision to deny scholarships to middleclass children, without taking all wealth determinants into consideration, is a very short sighted person indeed.
Report abuse
Can somebody help me with the maths here. Please forgive me if I have this wrong.
we have the oft quoted £2000 to educate at the colleges against the £7000 pounds in the State Schools but surely we are not measuring like for like .
The £2000 per pupil is an absolute cost where as the States is an average cost. The fixed costs buildings , teachers , heating etc remain the same it is just the average cost per pupil that changes.
Simple example. If the costs of running a school is £100 pounds and 10 children attend then the average cost is £10. If five more children attend then the cost per pupil is £6.66 per pupil. The actual fixed cost have not changed. The school does not recieve £50 more.
So what is the actual extra cost of one extra child in a state school- surely it is just the variable costs- Examinations,Excercise books etc. The only time it will have a substantial oost is if the school is full or class sizes are full and extra buildings and teachers need to be employed.
Ultimately I will shortly need to decide, if the 11+ lottery does not provide my child with a place at the college or the grammar, whether to pay for a private education or the States High School. I won’t do this as a magnanimous gesture to save the states money but as an ideological, cultural or educational choice. My conscience is clear and I am thankful that we can afford a choice open to very few on the Island.
Report abuse
Kevin, at last you’ve said something sensible I can wholeheartedly agree with. More scholarship places at the colleges and means test the fee payers subsiby.
As a sensible and fair option unfortunately it doesn’t stand a hope of ever happening …..
Report abuse
Dave Haslam
What actually works with the colleges? Is it the fact that they take intelligent students/those less so but from wealthy stable backgrounds and get good (but not exceptional)exam results or does it work because the idea that they are something special continues to exist? Fact is you could drag any decent new graduate out of University, stand them in front of a class of those kids and they’d succeed in a similar way. In some cases this is exactly what the colleges do if they can’t find a qualified teacher for the post.
The whole baloney business of selection at 11 is the thing that needs to be addressed if any progress is to be made at improving island wide performance.
Report abuse
Terry Le Monde – you’re basically right regarding the 11+
However what would the results be if the “less intelligent” pupils went to one of the current High Schools? Not too good I’d suggest.
So what does that tell us? It tells us that the college system of teaching and achieving is better than that of the High Schools.
And why is this? Well partly, of course, its down to the schools themselves but also, tellingly, its because most parents want their kids to acheive the best possible results. So you have a parent/school partnership which is of obvious mutual benefit. And it works very well once you cut through the guff.
Most people recognise the current system has flaws (11+) but trying to dumb to the lowest common denominator is a recipe for multiplied faliure.
Report abuse
Terry
Are you saying that 95% (Colleges) is a statistic based solely on the quality of the student?
Then given the fact that a large portion of the colleges classes are made up of fee paying students who arent there because of their 11+ result blows that out of the water.
The scholarship students aside, the colleges provide an exceedingly high pass rate for every child that passes through the door.
We need to fix the major problems at the rest of the schools first befre we even begin to think about this, this isnt the squeaky wheel thats causing our education system to fail.
A friend of mines daughter has just left La Mare with nothing, not a single GCSE pass, she isnt an 11 A* pupil, but certainly not stupid. Shes certainly clever enough to get way more than 5 GCSE passes in a better environment. Every day she complained to her parents that she just wasnt learning anything, for a variety of reasons, poor teaching, troublemaking students in class, getting picked on after class for asking the teacher questions or having done homework on time, every complaint to the school, by her and her parents fell on deaf ears.
Her mum was upset the other night saying they should have sacrificied the holidays and the new car and paid for the college instead, then maybe now she’d have certificates instead of photographs in exotic locations.
I agree that the 11+ system has its flaws, but tell me Terry, if you are asking me which part of the college system “works”, I tell you to look at its results. My question for you is, given the above, other than providing 11-16 year olds with a place to be during the week, which part of LMdC works?
Report abuse
Surely the most obvious difference is that they are single sex schools, allowing the pupils to concentrate on schoolwork instead of the opposite sex.
Report abuse
Gilthead
My point is I don’t believe the colleges do anything special.They have parents who want their kids to do well and the 23 or so ‘highest scoring’ 11+ takers in each year. It would be hard to fail with that sort of raw material- doesn’t mean they’re giving any value added to their students though. e.g.how do they compare to other independent schools in terms of Oxbridge entries etc; how do they deal with underachievers or those that don’t want to follow the ‘normal’ pathway of a college student?
Now flip that on its head and think about the High Schools and what they have to deal with- number 1 being trying to pick up the pieces of those kids ‘not selected’. Don’t forget that 50% of the Grammar 6th Form is made up of those that were written off at 11.
Report abuse
Dave
Are you saying that the colleges no longer have an entrance exam? If they do then they filter out those of lower ability- hence another selective intake. You also assume that those that didn’t take the 11+ and fee pay to college wouldn’t have scored highly but we’ll never know the answer to that one.
Can i ask you- when you say your friend’s daughter didn’t pass a single GCSE do you mean she didn’t get any at C or above or that she failed them completely?
Report abuse
Dave H and Stephen Fell, very well thought out and reasoned posts, which take an objective view on what should be the real issue i.e. quality of Education.
Those opposed to the Colleges will only ever see them as institutions for the privileged, and I think the majority of pupils (and their parents) will consider it a privilege to have been educated in either of them once they enter adult life.
The issue of taking the grant away from the Colleges to fund ‘improvements’ in the States provision of education is a white elephant. Money alone will not improve educational standards in States Schools by providing new buildings and shiny new facilities!
At the Ladies Colleges, some classes are held in obsolete portacabins, their main building is old and dated, but is in the best condition it can be because it has been maintained and looked after, unlike some schools.
Throwing money at the Education issue will not solve it. Good teachers, getting a sense of job satisfaction from teaching pupils that want to learn, fostered in an environment that encourages learning and rewards real success and effort will. This is what the Colleges offer.
Dave, I feel very sorry for your friend, and her daughter would appear to have found very little that was rewarding during her schooldays.
I also have friends whose child went to LMDC, who suffered similarly, and whose behaviour wasn’t the best, largely due to the effects of peer pressure.
However, they took the decision to move their child to College, and the improvement in their behaviour and general attitude to life has been marked.
I sincerely hope this issue isn’t hijacked by self-promoting politicians looking for cheap votes as we head towards the next election.
Report abuse
Kevin
When I referred to LC’s excellent A Level results (and compared them to GS) after you had said an A* student will be a A* student wherever they are, you dismissed it with an offhand remark that I should compare LC’s results with the girls at GS only on the basis that ‘girls outperform boys’. In effect, seeking to obscure the issue with a piece of popular wisdom.
That simply won’t wash. Apart from the fact that the GS doesn’t publish girl’s only results as far as I can see, it certainly doesn’t explain a 36% difference betweem LC ( 87%) and GS (51%) in the key A* to B A level grades (which, unfortunately, when aplying to good universities are the only ones that really count). That is a huge gap. GS also does worse than EC which is boys only.
However, what really worries me about your original statement is the implication that where you go to school doesn’t effect your results. Try telling that to the children at La Mare de Cartaret (and other High Schools) who are being massively let down by the system that permits LM to deliver a 17% A to C GCSE pass rate – and then seeks to hide it.
The Colleges are the real success stories in the Island’s system. The States should show they can fix the rest of it first before they undermine the bit that really works. They have been completely unsuccessful in doing so until now.
Report abuse
Terry
She didnt get a single C or above.
Yes the colleges have entrance exams, but they are not designed to take enough of a percentile out of the less learned students as to account for a statistical discrepency of around 78% betwen LM and the colleges.
Plus the criteria we are talking about is 5 GCSE’s A-C NOT 11 GCSE’s at A*, you dont have to be bright to acheive what is widely regarded as the minimum level of qualification you should leave secondary school with. And if you are not as inherently clever as the next person, a decent work ethic should still carry you to that goal. Its only really special needs children IMO that shouldnt acheive that target, so why 17%?
As Banfield illustrates, in her example, the college has taken a troubled girl and potential GCSE failure from one of our high schools and already changed her behaivour, I also assume this girl passed the “taxing” exam or she wouldnt be there!!
This in a nutshell is what I’m trying to say, the colleges work, the schools dont.
I have no idea where you got your assumption from, suffice to say its wrong, but more worryingly the overiding theme I am getting from your posts is that you intimate that a thick child is a thick child and a clever child is a clever child and no matter what quality of education you give, it wont change the results they get.
Banfield
Good post, I forgot to mention “the populist vote” issue, ahead of 2012, I’m glad you did.
There are so many inherent probelms with the islands education, I would hazard a guess that JK knows very little of how to actually solve it, but given education is the current hot topic, lets rally the troops and fire a salvo at the colleges, the public will love that.!
Report abuse
Terry le Monde – “My point is I don’t think the colleges do anything special.”
Perhaps so.
But by implication that would mean that the High Schools do things very badly.
Dave Haslam has it spot on @9:37
Report abuse
Interestingly re LMDC:-
As I recall, on the Radio Guernsey phone-in last Sunday, the former head teacher of LMDC responded in the negative when asked whether the GCSE results (for comparative purposes) of each school should be published externally.
Perhaps not a vote of confidence for the Education system as a whole.
Report abuse
Gilthead
You ask how the Colleges do relative to their independent school peers.
Well is the answer.
In LC’s case, an 87% A* to B rate compares very well with the last average for all independent schools of I think 72% in the UK. LC is also much less selective taking the average pupil – so on that basis should actually be doing worse. Maybe the GS and high school heads should speak to Jo Riches and find out what it is she is doing that clearly works so well.
I don’t want to knock the GS (for which the States are wholly responsible) but its score on that measure at 51% has tended to shown a decline over the last five years at a time when overall A Level results have improved greatly on average. The last 6 years’ show 65%, 63%, 57%, 63%, 58% and 51%.
Yet another reason, if more were needed, why the States record in Education is so poor and why they should steer well clear of upsetting the College apple cart.
Report abuse
Dave H – I cannot believe that a child cannot get a single GCSE pass at any level at all? This seems almost incomprehensible. What happened to this child’s coursework which would have been marked clearly throughout the time she spent on the subjects.
Report abuse
Georgia – I didn’t but thanks anyway!
I totally agree with you though.
Report abuse
Sarnia
Yes, as incomprehensible as a 17% pass rate.
Report abuse
Sorry, just seen the offical figure in the other article.
So I was in fact being generous with 17% its actually 12%
Yep, the schools are just fine!
Report abuse
Gilthead – apologies you are right. My previous post should have been addressed to Terry Le Monde
Report abuse
I went to LC and could not fault the teaching at all. If I struggled with a lesson the teacher would always spend time with me either in the lunch hour or after school until I understood. I walked away from that school with 10 GCSEs, which I am still really proud of. Everyone I know, that went to other schools, didn’t have that sort of time spent on them and didn’t do as well as I did, although they did have a better social life! I definitely want my daughter to go there.
Report abuse
Hi Georgia
Thanks for thinking of me!
For the record I agree that La Mare’s results are a disaster and indefensible. Also, I’m not against private or independent schools I just don’t think we should accept that we have the ‘best’ of them here without questions as some do.
Also for the record, if you check the link below you’ll see that LC comes 110th/342 schools for A grades at A level with is in the top 30% (just) Creditable- and a lot better than Elizabeth College which comes in at 241st/342 schools. League Tables eh! Perhaps the Head at EC should have a chat with the Head of Westminster School to see where he’s going wrong. By the way, the Colleges have always been more selective about their 6th Form than the Grammar has. They’re also not dealing with a mass influx of new students at the start of year 12.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/leaguetables/8775031/A-level-results-2011-independent-schools.html
Report abuse
sorry guys I made an error.
the rises in fees will be phased in over seven years not four. should the colleges not wish to absorb the rise in fees it will cost feepayers 62p per school day more.
what are you getting worked up about?
Report abuse
Terry
I havent heard anyone saying that we have the “best” private schools. The opinion appears to be at least they produce passes. And at a time when other schools are producing 12%, we souldnt be tampering with the colleges.
If my bike has one puncture, if I want to cycle home I dont fix the other tyre.
Report abuse