WHAT do VCJ, AQA and OFFA have in common? A quick unscrambling of the initials will reveal that they all have a lot to do with education.

They are Victoria College Jersey, probably the Island’s best-known private school; the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance, the UK’s biggest examination board; and the Office for Fair Access, effectively a higher education watchdog.

They also, in their very different ways, all represent examples of social engineering. (Please note, I am using VCJ purely as an example, certainly not a target; it would definitely sit at the benign and benevolent end of the scale, with the other two weighing very heavily on the levers of intervention and manipulation.)

So, starting in home waters, I suppose you could argue that just choosing to send some children to a ‘special’ fee-paying school which enjoys a particular kudos in the community amounts to the first conscious tweak of the engineering structure – whether it be by virtue of wealth or the belief that it is in their best interest to flourish academically or socially.

But it is a choice, freely made, if an expensive one. Ultimately, all things being equal, the pupils will be tested academically against their peers from a range of other educational establishments at a similar age, with equal prospects of climbing further up the ladder.

That’s the theory anyway. Of course there’re more to it than that. There’s the parental expectation that as a result of their investment, along with academic achievement, their progeny will emerge with social skills and connections which will influence and benefit them in later life.

And it doesn’t end there. The reputation of their school cannot be ruled out in the selection process for higher education, when it comes to the carousel of course choices, offers and selection.

Now we come to the proposals put forward by AQA to rank students according to the schools they attended, effectively ensuring that pupils at ‘weak’ schools are more favourably considered than those from high-achieving schools, so discriminating against those educated privately or at grammar school.

A more transparent attempt to put the brake on initiative would be hard to find, as it simply throws open the door to higher education regardless of the effort made to reach it.

This is social engineering at its worst and a demotivator, since it ignores the attempts by pupils, particularly those in less academically proficient schools, to work harder in order to achieve their goals.

Furthermore, it shoves ‘background’ into the learning process, which is divisive and insulting. It also runs the risk of exposing and pressurising students once enrolled on courses if they have not arrived there on academic merit.

Last on the list comes OFFA. Like the similarly named Anglo Saxon king of Mercia, this body appears intent on placing artificial earthworks, known contemporarily as ‘targets’, across the landscape by insisting that universities increase the number of applicants from ‘under-represented’ groups.

The teeth in this little arrangement is the threat to police the application of the new fees structure and strip ‘offenders’ of their ability to charge up to the limit of £9,000. So far, OFFA, which has been quick to accuse many of the traditional ‘elite’ establishments of missing their targets, has not explained away the evidence that students from the areas they are keen to promote into high-cost universities have shown a distinct preference to attend new and ‘red brick’ establishments.

In an ideal world, talent would be universally recognised, and it would be self-evident. Arguably the academic degree, whether from university or other such institutions, is the last opportunity to gauge like for like. Sadly, the drift into awarding ever more A grades at A-Level along with the plethora of non-core subjects has compromised meaningful comparison.

It may indeed boost school league tables and satisfy egalitarian ideologues, but it can have a corrosive effect when comparisons are needed for university entry or employment.

Meritocracy has a tough enough battle even before the doors of opportunity are slammed shut by cronyism or on the basis of where you come from rather than what you can do.

One of the more intractable questions that’s been coming up repeatedly at the election hustings and phone-ins has been how to accommodate and engage young people in our community after their period of formal education – particularly, how to encourage them to return to the Island after gaining university degrees or career training.

We undoubtedly have some of the brightest kids on the UK block, but they are obviously an investment going begging. And there’s the dilemma: it is certainly right that we should be providing the best educational opportunities for young people to develop, but given the limited job market, should we be doing more to create openings?

We certainly can’t afford to bend the rules for all the wrong reasons, but many return with degrees which leave them ‘over-qualified’ or inappropriately prepared for what is available. They can’t all be sucked into the finance industry, nor would want to. Of course, entrepreneurs don’t need university degrees, nor do you need three A-Levels to do certain jobs.

Undoubtedly, we all want them to play a vital part in society, to harness their drive and motivation early. There has certainly been renewed investment in local apprentice schemes, even talk of establishing our own university, though restricting the chance to explore life and opportunities away from the Island could be considered just as counter- productive as any of the devices I have previously laid before you.

The problem is, as with engineering of any kind, knock out one
widget and we’re all plunged into darkness.