Education Committee, 13 Sep 2006

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Official Report 268KB pdf

---

School Closures

We resume the meeting for item 7. We have received a letter from the Minister for Education and Young People on the subject of guidance for school closures. We took evidence from the minister at our meeting on 26 October 2005 and he has provided an update on the situation. One of the key issues in the minister's letter is the additional guidance that is to be produced by COSLA. It might be useful to keep the matter on the table until that guidance is available, so that we can look at it in the context of the overall position. If members wish to make any comments, I would like to hear them.

From the evidence that we heard this morning, it is clear that consultation is a key area. It would make sense for us to note the minister's letter and to return to the issue when the guidance is published, so that we can debate it more fully in the committee.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak in response to the letter from the minister. I will say a few words in my role as the member for Moray and as a politician who has, in recent years, been involved in campaigns to save rural schools. My comments are made very much in the context of rural school closures.

The minister's letter has been warmly welcomed. It has been well publicised in Moray, and many of the local communities who have been fighting to save their rural schools welcome his commitment. I will refer to a couple of the points that the minister makes.

First, there is the issue of consultation. There have been vigorous and long-running campaigns in Moray to save the future of 21 rural schools that were under threat of closure by Moray Council. One of the initial causes for concern was the lack of consultation and the nature of what limited consultation there was with the local communities. Effectively, communities were presented with lists of schools that were under threat of closure by the council. That came as a bolt out of the blue. From that stage onwards, communities had to rally round and start campaigning vigorously against proposals to close those schools. I hope that the committee agrees that communities should be at the heart of the decision-making process and that they should be involved at the beginning of that process, so that any council proposals are made in conjunction with the communities whose schools are at risk.

We must consider the future of rural schools in the context of rural development. We are not talking about just education, although that is the first priority; we are also looking at the future of rural schools in the context of the wider economy and the social aspects of rural communities. Many of the communities that I represent—and I know that this is the case throughout Scotland—have lost their banks, some of their shops and their post offices. In some cases, all that is left that can be described as contributing to an active community is the local school. That is why it is important that we pull out all the stops to save our rural schools and ensure that there is a presumption against closure. I welcome the steps forward that are being taken on consultation.

I welcome the reference in the minister's letter to the so-called 60 per cent rule, which I raised as an issue in a parliamentary question. In the parliamentary answer to which he refers in his letter, he effectively discredited the rule whereby, if a school's occupancy fell below 60 per cent of its capacity, that would trigger a review of its future. I welcome the fact that the minister is committed to writing to council conveners, saying that the 60 per cent threshold has no validity and no real status. I note that the minister is asking for the committee's support in that regard, and I hope that the committee and its convener will work with the minister in trying to persuade our local councils—Moray Council, in particular, given the fact that 21 of our schools keep appearing on its radar—that that rule has no status and should not be used.

The 60 per cent threshold does not reflect the long-term situation. For example, a rural school's occupancy can suddenly increase to well above 60 per cent or fall well below 60 per cent just because one or two families have moved into or have left the area. That is why the 60 per cent threshold cannot be used in the long term. As Professor Neil Kay has said eloquently many times, we would not use the 60 per cent threshold in other spheres of life, such as our local bus services. If a bus was less than 60 per cent full, we would not say that it was suddenly not viable and that the service should close down. We must be consistent.

The figure of 60 per cent appears to have been plucked from thin air, and there is a lot of confusion about where it has come from—whether from the Accounts Commission, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education, or whoever. We must pin that down and ensure that no one is giving guidance to our local councils that the 60 per cent threshold should be used. I personally believe that no threshold is appropriate, whether 60 per cent, 50 per cent or 40 per cent. We must judge each rural school's case on its merits. I hope that the committee will also take that view.

I make those points on behalf of the many communities in Moray that have run successful campaigns. Moray Council recently undertook to have a two-stage process in considering the future of rural schools. Unfortunately, the council continues to use the 60 per cent threshold as the trigger for that process. Our one remaining battle with Moray Council is to get rid of the 60 per cent threshold. Thankfully, the council has backed down on some of the closures, and we must pay tribute to the community campaigns in Moray and elsewhere in rural Scotland for bringing that about.

I know that the committee is taking a close interest in the matter of school closures, and I hope that it will support the minister's letter and take action in response to his plea for the committee's support in getting rid of the 60 per cent threshold.

I thank Richard Lochhead for his comments. The Moray case was among those that were the reason for the comments in Peter Peacock's letter to the committee last year, in which he referred to there being confusion about the status of proposals offered for consideration. In some cases, insufficient distinction was made between what might be best described as informal preliminary soundings and the more formal statutory consultations. It is hoped that the new guidance from COSLA will address that issue in order to resolve the situation. Schools' occupancy levels are a factor in closures, although they are only one factor among several, of which the educational case must be the primary one.

I return to a point that was raised earlier, during Mr Longmuir's evidence. Perhaps the committee might investigate, and perhaps get someone from SPICe to investigate, any available research that has been carried out on the impact of closures of rural schools on young people's education and on communities. If there is no substantial research on that, perhaps we should recommend that some be done. The idea that a school closes on sound educational grounds is a good idea, but those grounds must be proved, and we must know exactly what the background is. Saying it is not enough—authorities must back up their proposals.

We can discuss that at our next meeting, when we will consider the petition.

I echo other members' comments, including your own, convener. I think that we all warmly welcome the new guidance from the minister. Given the impressive evidence that we heard from Mr Longmuir this morning, I wonder whether we could discuss the matter in more detail at our next meeting.

I support that suggestion. We would like the issue to be resolved simply once decisions have been made on the outcome of the petitions. That would help guide our actions. For example, will HMIE have an enhanced role, with further checks and balances? Perhaps it would be appropriate for some comment on that to be included in the guidance. It would be easier to approach the matter in sequence.

When Mr Longmuir was giving his evidence, I referred to the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Act 2006, which I think comes into force today.

Some parts of it are already in force, but not others.

It might be worth while seeking the advice of the minister on what powers the 2006 act gives to parent councils, which would aid our discussion of the petitions. That information could be included in guidance, so that people are aware of any powers of referral to HMIE that they have.

If my recollection is correct, the minister indicated during the passage of the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Bill that guidance would be issued on the nature of referrals to HMIE, specifying what would and what would not be appropriate.

It would be important to include that in the guidance that goes to parents, so that they know what their powers are.

I am not sure whether or not that is covered in the guidance document that was recently published.

I suggest that we note the response. We will return to the matter when the new guidance from COSLA is published, so that we can decide whether we are satisfied that the guidance is as we would like it to be. We will take that into account when we consider the petition in two weeks' time.