JUST how committed are the very well paid management teams in the public sector in achieving the political ambition of cutting costs while maintaining or improving front-line services?
I doubt that any taxpayer begrudges the salaries of dedicated nurses, inspirational teachers or diligent policeman. What they do begrudge is a fat public sector with too many pen-pushers and too many layers of government. Let’s look at the current government vacancies on the States of Jersey website and examine if the notion of running efficient departments while saving money is sinking in.
I’ve picked the role of ‘professional partner to schools’ as the vacancy to review. This is a brand new position with a salary of up to £78,943 per annum; if you add in social security and pension contributions, the taxpayer cost will be in the region of £100,000. It is a permanent role and the five-year residency requirement has been dropped, as seems commonplace in the public sector, so anyone can apply.
The job summary states: ‘Jersey is seeking to recruit an exceptional professional to join our growing school development and evaluation team.’
This is not a cheap role and is not a front-line appointment. The post holder will be a member of the school development and evaluation team and will report to the head of school development and evaluation, who already costs the taxpayers well over £100,000 per annum. The job seems to entail visiting schools ‘to make judgments about effective strategies for school improvement’. Obviously the head teachers and the very well paid head of school development and evaluation are incapable of undertaking this role.
This appointment is not surprising when you see the organisational structure at Education accompanying the job description. For example, the early years administrator reports to the five members of the early years advisory team, who report to the teaching and early years learning adviser, who reports to the head of early years, who reports to the assistant director standards and achievement, who reports to the director for education, sport and culture, who reports to the minister. Not one student-facing person among all these roles; not one member of front-line services.
If the unions want to look after their members, they must stop their ridiculous 1970s strike rhetoric and help to mould a lean and efficient public sector. At the moment it looks like they wish to inflict higher taxes on most of their members to protect fat public-sector management. They need to realise that the public-sector managers use them to protect their own cosy positions. This has to stop.
