The Board of Governors of the International School of Geneva decided without consultation to move all students in classes 10 through 13 from La Grande Boissiere and La Chataigneraie to a new campus to be constructed in Grand Saconnex, near the airport.

All parents and alumni are encouraged to attend an Extraordinary Consultative General Assembly to be held in Meeting Room XX (Building E - entrance via Door 40) at the United Nations in Geneva on Tuesday, November 28, 2000 at 19:30.

From Mr Forrest's letter we can glean some of the facts from the perspective of the board. It seems that the views of the alumni of the foundation are not being actively chased to be fed into the debate. Indeed our very sensible provider and mentor has appealed to us not to polarise the discussion or add to any turmoil. I have sat on my hands all week waiting for the storm to blow over and see what shines through when the dust settles.

Before I give a few personal views as a P.S. to the large volume of our reactions to this important news can I make a suggestion.

Although I agree fully with Richard that a knee jerk response might ostracise the board I do feel that our views are relevant. We are the end product of the Foundation's excellent education. I also am confident that a reasoned and rational comments supporting the necessary expansion of the foundation but voicing any concerns about the relative merits of the models under consideration could help the decision making. The fact that the foundation is being actively courted as the desired vehicle to increase the capacity for international education in Geneva speaks volumes in its own right. The quarter of century or so of its highly productive life is a testimonial to the model of a foundation of separate schools working as a whole.

We have until the 27th of November to produce an open letter to the governing board to have our views represented. I would be happy to be involved but the silent majority of you will need to stand up and be counted if this is to be in any way representative. Clearly the simplest way to do this is to ask for people that feel strongly to summarise their position but to do this behind the scenes so as not to add fuel to the fire. I am confident that our major-domo will be easily able to come up with a way of channeling this if it is needed.

What do you think? Speak up oh quiet ones!

Regards

Jon Warner

P.S. Below my own views on the recent flurry of messages about the new campus. I am not representing anyone but my very prejudiced and fallible self in these opinions. Feel free to flame grill by email off the list!

(i) The notion that multinational sponsorship for a new build is likely to mean that the sponsor will create an "American" school is nonsense. They cannot fill the school in their own right. Any governing board in the world would not bow to this type of pressure. The correct approach would be to woo other sponsors also pushed to place their employees kids in local schools. The economic situation might change and any sponsor might pull out. A committment of around 10% of the building costs would be a cheap solution for a company as not recruiting to lovely Tax friendly Geneva would cost them even more. As the approached party the foundation has the upper hand in the negociation anyway, they should take the kind offer and use it well and not accept any unreasonable constraints.

(ii) I find myself agreeing with Mr Anthony. La chat more English... twaddle. Company kids (especially Proctor and Gamble) were different to other school fellows... tosh. What about CERN, Caterpillar, Union Carbide, Dupont, WHO, UNO, GATT (then) etc etc and locals and boarders and etc. The strength of the school was it didn't matter what your parents did.

(iii) The current petitions from parents in Geneva prove that there has been no consultation of parents yet and most of the feedback is uproar and annoyance.

(iv) I disagree with Robin, for once, that having an opinion before you know all the facts is not sensible. All my previous arguments hold and more.

(v) I think the idea of a 10-13th grade for the whole foundation is pedagogically unsound and will weaken the existing schools permanently. The analogy is imagine four or five people (schools) with a history of working well in their own right and together as a team. Chop off all the heads and put them in a pile and see what happens to the group. You destroy the whole system.

(vi) A cynical thought was is it down to equipment?. It would cost nothing to fill the new school with science equipment and specialised senior school needs. (e.g. 80 teaching microscopes from Olympus for biology cost a quarter of a millionSfr so add all the other paraphernalia and you have a budgetary headache. Wean the kit out of existing schools and you have no bill!)

(vii) In my experience of two similarly costed builds (labs) the notion that it is important to let the architects compete with a remit and rethink later meams blowing huge amounts of money. The new lab half my team will occupy next year was rethought at the half way point and the only people to benefit were the architects. There is time to make the right decision now with consultation and asking for bids for the wrong model in haste is a very painful expensive and time consuming way to go.

In summary a new secondary school and full partner in the foundation is a better long term prospect as no existing school is weakened and the new school will not be so fragile when it comes to surges in population. (i.e. lean year for 12 and 13th graders could be buffered by good year for 8th and 9th graders if the range of ages catered for is greater. Lean year for 12th and 13th graders kills the school financially very quickly if the population trend dips and it only caters for a tight age range. Redundant teachers galore!)

Jon Warner (PhD DipRCPath)
Director of Molecular Genetics Service
Honorary Research Fellow University of Edinburgh
Human Genetics Unit
Western General Hospital
Edinburgh EH4 2XU
Telephone 0044 131 651 1045
Fax 0044 131 651 1059