Benderloch’s Victory Hall last night (18th November 2010) was just that. We came away from it believing that this entire set of insultingly ill-founded and ill-prepared proposals to close 25 of Argyll and Bute’s primary schools can be thrown out.
The key is for every one of the threatened schools physically to get moving – as they patently have done in mounting their vigorous campaigns – and get together, as soon as possible and before the council meeting on 25th November which plans to send all the outstanding closure proposals to public consultation.
The schools planned to close and those planned to receive the evacuees are equally threatened, with the latter facing swollen class sizes, worse teacher:pupil ratios, fewer teaching staff and facilities under strain.
If they make their joint contempt for this ‘process’ known and simply refuse to accept it; if they stand against being picked off by offers of individual reprieve – as has already been done (and as planned from the outset, with Lung), no one can now stop them. (If we were Luing, we would insist on supporting our peers and refuse to come off the list.)
The schools need to stand together, support each other, insist on one-for -all-and-all-for-one and refuse to do anything other than see this wholly dishonourable mess off the park.
Why should a single school that does not want to close be forced to do so on the basis of a set of so discredited proposals – and with much more heavy ammunition ready, as we well know, to finish them off.
After last night, For Argyll has absolutely no doubt that concerted action by the schools can save every single school and get these proposals as an entirety, thrown out at once.
A political game-changer
This issue has galvanised Argyll. Because the 26, now 25 schools (if Luing takes the reprieve and runs), are spread across the mainland and island territory. There is barely a corner of it that is not motivated in determination to fight.
This issue is clearly a political game-changer in Argyll.
In the Victory Hall there was utter community solidarity, a united fury, a visceral anger at the insult of unevidenced proposals, easily shown to be incapable from root to branch.
Mick Rice, the Labour candidate for Argyll and Bute in the Scottish Election 2011, had travelled up from deep in Cowal at Blairmore, made himself know late into the meeting, spoke powerfully against the nonsense used to browbeat the communities and got a resounding ovation. He is no local authority virgin, coming from considerable experience in the tough cockpit of Birmingham.
The meeting, hosted by the two community councils of Ardchattan and Connel, was a public fact-finding session on the planned closure of no fewer than three local primary school – Achaleven, Ardchattan and Barcaldine – and their joint transfer to a fourth, Lochnell.
The hall was full. The majority of the audience were of working age, parents, teenagers (an unusual feature of such meetings), children and a stout seasoning of powerful local experience – several of whom had been round this particular block before, like Jay Macdonald, the formidable former headteacher at Barcaldine (and a major league Daniel O’Donnell fan).
From start to finish, there was the strongest bond of solidarity here and a focused anger at the sheer outrage of children forced to face upheaval and communities their own death warrants – all on the back of a quite disgracefully incompetent set of school closure proposals. A fellow and uninvolved community council. Taynuilt, also turned up to lodge their formal support.
In the middle of it all, like three brave – if not wise – monkeys, sat, huddled together, Councillors Donald MacDonald (SNP) Elaine Robertson and Neil MacKay (both of the Alliance of Independents). All three are members of the ruling coalition of Argyll and Bute Council and two, Mr MacDonald and Mrs Robertson, are members of its controversial Executive Committee.
There was no evading responsibility. They did their best but there was no conviction in them. Why should there be? They are intelligent people and their situation is untenable.
The three faced regular direct challenge, with speakers turning to face them, eyeballing them in calling them to account for what was planned and for the absolute lack of competent evidence or strategy to support it.
A fast forward to the end of the meeting sums it up. A kind member of Connel Community Council spoke from the table at the front. He said: ‘i’m sorry for the Councillors. They have to defend a document full of mince’. The hall erupted with laughter at this no-nonsense description that is all proposals of this calibre deserve.
Then Tim Macintyre of Barcaldine School – and a former pupil, stood up. He said, with deadly lucidity: ‘It is the job of elected councillors to make sure that such documents are not mince’. This was followed by a full-throated cheer from the entire hall.
Councillors now have only two choices:
- They can be browbeaten by those out of touch with the very strong feeling of outrage across Argyll and by the inadequates who produced and signed off the mince, into, sheeplike approval that the whole panfull goes to consultation.
- They can refuse to accept the proposals and insist on a fresh and very different start.
Christmas is coming up on the inside rail. Will the Council turkeys vote for the roasting pan?
One thing is certain. This issue can finish the SNP in Argyll.
They are lassooed to these tattered proposals. They may be the minority partner in the ruling alliance of the council but they are the recognisable party. The others, the Alliance of Independents, are an ad hoc collection of self-serving councillors, too canny to stand for anything and lacking any political philosophy to bind them.
The SNP’s fingerprints are all over this issue. The Conservatives, the second strongest voting body in Argyll and Bute, have nothing to do with any of it, nor do the, traditionally leading, Liberal Democrats. Now Labour have produced a potent candidate, with relevant experience, a political street-fighter, untainted by any of Argyll’s pork-barrell local politics and obviously on the move. On this issue, he is going to be a one-man U-boat wolf-pack in the midst of a convoy of unarmed merchant ships.
Only the blindest could fail to see that this is an unwinnable situation – unless swift and decisive action is taken to lance it now.
Will the SNP do the classic cliff rush of the lemmings, wasting everything they have gained, every ounce of respect that the hyperactive and respected Jim Mather has done as the area’s first SNP constituency MSP? Who knows?
The meeting
We will shortly publish a second article on the specific issues arising at the meeting – which are instructive. We will put it in the ‘Save our Schools’ box on the left of this screen by lunchtime today (19th November) and link it to this article.
For now, the important points are:
- An unstoppable Douglas Mackenzie, (above) representing Barcaldine School, in a breathtakingly focused presentation, forensically demolished every part of the education department’s flawed proposals, one by one. He produced irrefutable evidence to make mince of the mince – with England’s CSTAR study, where a sample of no fewer than 10,000 showed conclusively that smaller schools produce substantially better educational results. This shredded the transparent nonsense of the simplistic mantra consultant, Keir Bloomer, was paid to import (no evidence required) that ‘bigger schools are better’. Mr Mackenzie then slammed home, point by icily uncluttered point, just how successful a school Barcaldine is. He repeated our own evidence that Education Director Cleland Sneddon. had said publicly at the 2nd November Council meeting that, with its proven success, its secure and steady roll, demand for placements and the neutral savings to be made in closure, there was no case to close Barcaldine other than that ‘bigger schools are better and it is therefore a candidate for amalgamation’.
- Achaleven school admitted to a low roll but showed just why this is – and it is down to the Council’s lack of vision and failure to listen to the community. There are a significant number of children in the Achaleven catchment area who do not go to Achaleven school. This is because there is no pre-school facility in Achaleven so the children have to go elsewhere for that. They make pre-school friends in the other schools, like the designated receiving school at Lochnell and of course they prefer to stay there when they start in Primary One. The community has asked for pre-schooling at Achaleven but with no response and no care for the consequences coming from the education department. Achaleven feels, with reason, that it has been set up for closure where the parents, in raising tens of thousands of pounds for new facilities, have demonstrated their commitment to growing the school, with new housing coming in and where they can show that the rolls will rise, not fall.
- Achahleven also exposed another cooking of the figures in the education department’s proposals. They overestimate the capacity of Lochnell, the planned receiving school, again by using the planning capacity standard of how-many-kids-can-you-fit-in-a-phonebox rather than the operational capacity standard – and they fail to mention that Lochnell has an additional present cohort of 29 pre-school children, 13 in the morning and 16 in the afternoon. Lochnell parents present spoke of their anxiety at the swelling of the school numbers – down to a level of six available basins for hand-washing before lunch, lavatories and recreational facilities – with a planned 177 children.
- Ardchattan accepted that it is weak at the moment, with few pupils, but spoke powerfully of the hard-wired connection between the school and the community, pointed to evidence of cyclical rise and fall in local primary rolls, with Barcaldine once down to 7 while Ardchattan was in the mid 20s. The argument here is that the population in the Ardchattan catchment area can be shown to be due to rise and that, if the school is closed now, coming demand for capacity will be far more expensive to fulfil. Susan Bland, who found herself, with no notice, having to speak for Ardchattan, raised two serious additional issues. The transfer of pupils from Ardchattan to Lochnell will mean pick up points for bus ravel on a narrow single track road, endlessly busy with heavy truck movements to and from Bonawe Quarry. There are very real safety issues here. And if the school is closed, who on earth will come to live in remote Bonawe?
- The proposals, as a whole, do not take into account the impact of planned housing developments in the various areas.
- On the key issue of the educational benefit that must, by law, underpin any closure proposal, arguably the most telling point of the night came from a pupil. Unprompted, he asked to speak and said simply that in big schools only the best get chosen for the sports teams and the nativity play, where in a small school ‘everybody gets a chance’.
Young children from Barcaldine school – a row of six year olds – were engaged in the debate from start to finish, listening keenly, recognising good points made from the body of the hall, clapping and cheering, making their own contributions – and, now politicised, seeing, feeling and enjoying what solidarity can do.
Conclusions
Councillor Donald Macdonald admitted that the nature of the agreement between the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) – made to maintain the Council Tax freeze – means that if the closure proposals go through as they stand, they will leave Argyll and Bute Council failing to comply with the agreement and, in consequence, facing a penalty of several further millions of pounds in cuts.
For Argyll challenged the Council yesterday morning to withdraw the proposals until they were able to take account of the conditions of this agreement and then see if there is enough left even to put to consultation.
The position is, as the Scottish Rural Schools Network team has incontrovertibly shown, that this agreement makes it imperative not to drop teacher numbers and not to raise teacher:pupil ratios.
These two things are at the heart of the council’s schools closure proposals and it is these very measures that produce the claimed savings in the closure programme, overestimated as they have been demonstrated to be.
We received from the Council this morning a response to our challenge. It reads: ‘While we welcome the Scottish Government’s budget announcement, the council will need to evaluate in detail the terms of the draft budget to fully understand its implications’.
The SRSN have already done this for them and published it.
The big issue here is that the very foundations of the proposal papers – feeble as they already are, now require total reconsideration. It is quite likely that, when compliance with the COSLA agreement is factored in, the savings left will be reduced to the point where they cannot remotely be set against the cost of the community destruction they will inflict.
To persist in going ahead and trying to get approval to send these tatters out for consultation as they stand, would be no less than wilful corporate self-mutilation. There is now no picture on which to consult.
Throughout Argyll, as last night in Benderloch, there is simply contempt for the education department’s school closure proposals and for the councillors who have failed to govern this issue.
It is a well founded contempt.
Neither the education department in its proposals, nor the councillors in their governance, deserve more. Both have been negligent. Neither has shown capability in their individual role.
The proposals have already been shown, in detail large and small, utterly to lack theoretical, practical and mathematical foundation, to be error strewn, to misinform, to miscalculate, to consider no option other than mass closure and to fail to consider – at all – issues like community impact, which the legislation requires.
This alone provides an unavoidable imperative for later call-in by the Scottish Government – of every single closure proposal on the table.
The proposals are intellectually inadequate, dishonest, disingenuous – beneath contempt.
Why should communities be asked to take them seriously? Why should serious effort and ruined family Christmases be spent producing the gold of an exhaustive defence case at the prompt of a dross peashooter?
We recommend that the communities hosting the threatened schools sand the designated receiving schools should get together and simply, collectively refuse to accept the proposals or to cooperate with this shamed process in any further way.
The most powerful statement in any attempted consultation process on this – should councillors be sufficiently suicidal to let it go any further – is empty halls for public meetings on proposals not worth wiping your backside on.
Achaleven and Ardchattan surely must be a couple very difficult ones for Councillors to stick their necks out for. Both have very small rolls and easily within the 45 minute limit (20 mins & 22 mins respectfully), you could probably bus both schools into Oban within 45 mins. There are also among Argyll’s most expensive primaries per head.
Connel as a community will not be drastically effected by the closure of Achaleven. It is a stable village on a major trunk road passing through the north of Argyll. Some parents who working in Oban already choose to send their kids to schools in town as it suits their work patterns
Many years ago Ardchattan would have been a bustling little schools filled with kids who’s fathers would have worked at Bonawe quarry. These days that operation no longer can support the community it once did. Even with a raft of ACHA owned properties at Kenmore Cottages it appears this area is not attracting young families. And to be honest it’s not surprising, there is very little down that side of Loch Etive.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I should have added that the case for closing Barcaldine is non-existent, it seems to be a braw little school and it should be removed from the current amalgamation proposal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
i really hope that jim does not have a job promoting argyll and bute as a place to come and live because he’d have everyone running for the cities, OK so ardchattan is not attracting young families, but if you take the one thing that will potentially bring young families to an area, i.e a good school , you might as well condemn that area to ghosttownhood
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jim – your comments about Barcaldine are well put and I hope the council agrees with you. However, representatives from both Achaleven and Ardchattan put forward strong and passionately felt arguments as well, and I don’t think we can just dismiss them because at this particular ‘snapshot’ in time they are both in relatively weak positions roll-wise. Barcaldine has been through these tough times too in the more distant past and has recovered well to its present strong position – but only because we have fought hard in the past against closure and succeeded. Who is to say that a reprieved Ardchattan could not bounce back in the same way? The school has huge support from the community who have worked hard on the grounds and raised large sums to finance the improvements. If its future was to be assured, Bonawe would be a highly attractive place to raise children, irrespective of the fact that it is at the ‘end of the road’. The constant perception over many years of a lingering threat to small schools is likely a big part of the reason why it has low numbers in the first place.
The situation at Achaleven, where only 20% of the catchment children currently attend the school, is surely a temporary anomaly which could easily be reversed if the council worked with the community to support the school instead of trying to close it. Connel is a sizeable and entirely distinct community which could easily support its own school, and certainly does not pass any test of ‘no viable alternative’ as required by the legislation.
The problem overall is that instead of looking at individual communities and asking how they can be strengthened and protected into the future while making all possible savings through increased efficiency, this whole process is a ‘desktop exercise’ conducted from an office by staff who know little or nothing of the characters, histories or trajectories of the communities whose futures they are playing games with. The Scottish Government guidelines require the authority not only to take into account the effect of closure on the community but to explain how they have done so. Not one proposal paper appears to have any locally-based analysis along these lines, or any sign of local knowledge having been sought out in its preparation.
Ironically, if the council had just brought forward proposals to close a few of the empty and weaker schools, they would probably have found only minimal resistance and been able to make some worthwhile savings. Instead, they have provoked such an enormous level of outrage that it can only be resolved by the entire programme being thrown out so that we can start again with a new process which begins where it should – in our communities.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Another example of ‘Time for Scotland to lead from community upwards’, power to your pencils.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
closure mum; If I was promoting young families to come to Argyll I would be encouraging them to move to areas which offer access to the facilities and services they need. In the vicinity of Ardchattan you have North Connel, Benderloch and Barcaldine, all of which have strong and stable communities. They are close by main transport routes but can also offer a rural lifestyle should residents wish it.
It’s just an unfortunate reality that the demographics of settlements changes over the years. When a community is dependant on a particular industry, quarrying in the case of Ardchattan, the effect when the industry withdraws or contracts is acute. Don’t get me wrong, Ardchattan is a lovely little corner of Argyll but I don’t ever see it as being a highly attractive place to live for young families.
If the people of Connel are resolved to saving Achaleven then the obvious solution is for those sending their kids to other schools is to pull them out of their current school and enroll them in Achaleven. Surely that would be the most convincing support a community could show towards their local school?
Had the Council only brought forward a limited set of proposals then we would all be sitting here criticising the Council for not considering the whole picture and picking the low hanging fruit. It’s a no win situation for the Council. Personally I prefer the situation of having a large number of proposals that can be whittled down over having a list of foregone conclusions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have to agree with Jim, it looks as though the Achaleven parents themselves are closing their local school by voting with their feet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Simon: This betrays an utter unconcern with evidence – very much in line with the procedure of the education department’s proposal papers to the Council.
We have shown why the picture at Achaleven is what it is – the catchment area has no pre-school provision, although parents have asked for it.
This means that pre-school children have to go elsewhere and, naturally, with friendships and familiarity formed there, when they start primary school they want to stay with their friends.
What you say is grossly insulting to parents at Achaleven who, on the evidence, are doing all they can to grow the sustainability of their lo cal school – and would succeed in this if they were not obstructed in their efforts and set up to close by the refusal to provide pre-schooling.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
On the 17th November ‘Newsroom’ stated “Some schools are all but closed already. Beyond that, of course we don’t think every school should stay open, nor does anyone else in our experience – .and we have been boringly consistent in saying so”.
I have to say it certainly doesn’t look that way as the article above certainly appears to demonstrates “We came away from it believing that this entire set of insultingly ill-founded and ill-prepared proposals to close 25 of Argyll and Bute’s primary schools can be thrown out”.
Can newsroom state please let us know what their position is on this? Should all proposals be thrown out? Would that be a good thing as the article above seems to say – or as you’ve said previously(17th Nov if you want to check) do you believe that not all schools should stay open? Would shutting some schools then be a good thing?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am working on the defence of Kilcreggan and Rosneath schools but also wish all the schools well. We should be united on this and not fall into the trap of divisive argument which pits schools and communities against each other. Douglas Mackenzie is entirely correct to reference the CSPAR study – I will be doing likewise in the defence of the Peninsula Schools. Also I would encourage people to research the findings of the US study ‘Project STAR’.
Then focus on the community impact which the Council are bound by statute to consider. They may claim to have considered it but, if your proposal is anything like ours, they have considered it on the back of a fag packet whilst Cleland Sneddon was booking his holiday. The limited regard in our proposal is hideously flawed and then you start to think about what they have ommitted and it is staggering. Also look to their Single Outcome Agreement – reconcile their commitments in that to their current proposals.
Target their claims. In our proposal apparently ‘Any educational effects would be positive’ – not a single negative then. They admit the journey is 45 minutes (with only 30 seconds allowed for a pick up which involves over 20 children) but that has no impact. They have a class of 43 with two teachers but that is a positive educational impact. We have parents who can no longer take their children to pre-5 because it will cost them as much as £1,100 a year but hving to remove them from pre-5 has no educational impact (despite the Curriculum for Excellence extending into nurseries)
The list is endless. we must not be divisive, we must be together on this. Appeal to your councillor so save not just your school but all our schools. This trancends party politics.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
simon,
yes of course throwing out all the proposals would be a good thing,
new events change the outlook of all of us from hopefull to hopeless on a daily basis, picking up newsroom for some statements on the 17th is churlish. have you seen the speed with which these articles are being produced ? the for argyll website has been a godsend for all the affected parents, if you have anything to add apart from backing up your buddy jim, then continue. other than that keep paying your taxes to keep our children in adequate education and there may be a future for us all.
jim mcintyre said “Instead, they have provoked such an enormous level of outrage that it can only be resolved by the entire programme being thrown out so that we can start again with a new process which begins where it should – in our communities.”
that statement just about covers it, if the council had a single leg to stand on do you think the collective parents of argyll and bute would have such damning well researched questions to ask of this present councils poor proposals.
with respect do you simon think that these proposals should carry forward. you have been hot on this issue for some time, which schools do you want to close ? thats a difficult question that i do not think you will answer.
p.s. i am tired and grumpy and fed up with the haters, but its my last night so yipee, and i’ll be looking forward to all the comments on this wonderful site in the run up to the meeting next week, will the councillors do the right thing, who knows, dunno if they even do yet. they will find it hard to spin this all to their benefit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
he he i like to comment when everybody is asleep.
The list is endless. we must not be divisive, we must be together on this. Appeal to your councillor so save not just your school but all our schools. This trancends party politics. says laurence. how right is he, it not only trancends party politics it totally beggars belief. if they continue they are more or less putting themselves out of a job, theres a question, how many councillors do we need ?? answers on a voting card next year please.
i will shut up now, maybe
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Achaleven
Parents are being pushed into using other schools by ABC’s lack of investment in pre-school provision.
Children have to go elsewhere to pre-school, so it is less easy to come back to Connel at school time, as the kids have made strong relationships with their peers.
There are 14 children coming up to pre-school, as well as those already in pre-school.
If these had provision in Achaleven then the school would become easily viable in coming years, as well as making the village more attractive to MORE families.
That creates a viable community.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Robert you call me ‘churlish’ for pointing out ‘newsrooms’ abilty to occupy two distinct and yet contadictory positions on this issue.
Well pardon me for being ‘churlish’ again but it would be helpful if you as well could clarify your position; last week you said “simon we don’t need every school”. Now that’s quite clear – not every school is needed and de facto some can close. However yesterday you state “simon, yes of course throwing out all the proposals would be a good thing”.
There seems to be an inability on both newsroom and Robert’s part to holds the same view for more than a week. Are people just saying that what they want is an open transparent process whilst all the time just really wanting to keep all schools open regardless of cost and educational benefit and theimpoact on others?
There are clear contradictions here and either ForArgyll is providing a forum for open discussion on this matter or it is merely pretending to do.
The proposed school closures are attracting quite rightly a great deal of interst and ther eis a genuine need for some honesty here – both newsroom and Robert fell over themselves to say a few days ago of course not all school are needed with ‘newsroom’ adding “and we have been boringly consistent in saying so”. Actually no – you appear not to have been “boringly consistent” – a little bitof clarity and honesty would be helpful now.
This is serious matter with the Council facing its worse cuts ever – the only questions are – do we need all of these schools or not? If not – what do we need to keep and why? If not which ones do we need to close and why?
Everyone really needs to face up to the truth of our situation which is not of the council’s making. They are having to deal with the result of political decisons taken elsewhere and real tough choices have to be made. Pretending they don’t exist or demang that no schools should close merely means that other services will have to suffer disprportionately.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sorry, I did mean to say also that if For Argyll wishes to promote open, honest debate then perhaps it could be less emotional, rabble-rousing and abusive in its reporting. Of course is it does not want to report openly, fairly, honesly and offer objective comment and promote fair debate – then of course it can just continue to do what it is doing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Simon – ForArgyll seems to me to be allowing open discussion – have any of your posts been censored? I think if the coverage seems at times ‘emotional’, that is just a reflection of the feelings in 26 Argyll communities at present, and the ‘rabble’ has been well & truly roused by the council, not by this website. No-one would doubt that it is good for the debate for you and Jim, and anyone else, to post serious and probing questions about the positions we are taking, but I believe that your repeated and insistent demand for ‘newsroom’ and others to simply name which/how many schools should close is too simplistic to merit an answer, which is why you are repeatedly not getting one. In the early stages of this coverage, ‘newsroom’ published an article which suggested that the Rosneath peninsula proposal might be a sensible rationalisation and have little community effect. On receipt of a stream of comment and information to the contrary from those communities, ‘newsroom’ quickly admitted that it had been a paper exercise and retracted the position. I doubt if your endless repetition of your question will provoke ‘newsroom’ into a repeat of that. I also don’t understand your inability to accept that this is a fluid situation and that a particular commentator’s view could change over time as more information and comment come in, and as the council fail to substantially respond to the majority of questions which have been raised.
The position that you, and to a large extent the Education Department, appear to be taking is that the number of schools we ‘need’ in Argyll is simply a function of the number of children we have. What everyone else is saying is that it should be regarded as a much stronger function of the number of ‘vibrant commmunities’ we want to maintain (A & B Council buzz-phrase, not mine!). Argyll & Bute Council’s overall stated strategic vision, with talk of the said vibrant communities and ‘Leading Rural Authority’ aspirations, suggests that the council as a whole agrees, and the Scottish Government clearly does also. This part of the discussion is not really an educational argument or even a financial one, it’s a question of vision. Jim suggests that, as an alternative to maintaining small schools, families should settle where there are schools and facilities – a desperately dispiriting vision of Argyll’s future whose logical trajectory would have us all raising our families in the CHORD towns and then retiring to the countryside.
As to ‘which’ schools should close, that is entirely a matter for the council and, importantly, the affected community to decide, in a properly conducted and transparent process. To suggest that I, or Robert, or newsroom should come onto this forum and pontificate on specific proposals for communities we know little of as individuals, is ludicrous. What has developed, meanwhile, is a strong sense that we are all in the same boat, and so we are all now tending increasingly strongly towards a ‘presumption against’ the closure of ANY school on the list on the basis of the current proposal process. The Council has had three weeks since the first meeting to come up with an overhaul of its proposal and all we have is some minor tweaks and a journey-time exercise which has seen Luing removed, thankfully, from the hit-list but which still contains its own errors and inconsistencies. None of the other questions raised about financial calculations, educational ‘benefits’, community impacts, occupancy figures, loss of teachers, localised roll projections, viable alternative options, government budget constraints on teacher redundancy, etc. have been properly addressed. I can’t honestly see how any of the proposals could get past the government call-in rules at present, never mind the recent budget announcement, and I don’t know why any elected councillors would wish to see their or their officials’ time wasted any further on them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Robert & Lawrence; I admire the “together we stand” approach you promote but I don’t believe it is the right one in this instance. Solidarity is not going save every school and it won’t make the Councillors job any easier. There are going to be losers across the board from the public sector funding crisis, education is not alone. At this point the focus should be on ensuring that the final set of schools put forward for closure are the right ones when all aspects are considered. Every school cannot be kept open, we cannot afford it without slashing other budgets.
linnhe; Could the community not set-up their own pre-school in Achaleven if there was the demand that you suggest?
Tim McIntyre; Your comment about families living in CHORD towns is just absurd. There are plenty of schools not included in the closure proposals which are out-with our major towns and allow families to enjoy the rural lifestyle and culture. Vision is great, but it costs money, money that local authorities simply don’t have.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Tim – c’mon let’s hava bit of honesty here “if the coverage seems at times ‘emotional’, that is just a reflection of the feelings in 26 Argyll communities at present, and the ‘rabble’ has been well & truly roused by the council” – the report above by ‘newsroom’ is fairly typical and is certainly not merely a sympathetic report of a meeting – it is highly emotive, offensive, abusive and intolerant. Now ‘newsroom seems happy that young childdren have been ‘politicised’ – happy to use language such as “proposals not worth wiping your backside on” I have to say that this is highly emotive and offensive language and language that if used by the Council or its staff would have newsroom and others (rightly) howling with outrage.
I also hav eto put my hand up to say that of course I do see actually see relationship between the number of pupils and the number of schools we actually need. Anyone who suggests otherwise, especially in these times of the servest cuts any of us have ever seen is surely merely avoiding reality? If the number of schools is not to be based on the number of pupils what is it to be based on? Schools as the engine of economic regeneration? Are you actually suggesting that there should not be a relationship between pupil numbers and the number of schools. Or that if only we all agree that other services should be hit twice as hard just to to keep the schools open – pupils will come? C’mon, this is not some schmoozy feel-good American ‘Field of Dreams’ fiction – with Ray walking through the cornfield repeating ad nauseum – ‘if we build it they will come’. This is a serious issue and can we please have some reality here. Because like it or not the the elected members (or the “monkeys” as newsroom describes them above) have to deal in reality. They have to find saving sand they are being criticised by one section of government for having too many under-occupied schools ie for having too many schools and too few pupils. Why? because the Government also believes also that there should be a relationship between pupil numbers and the number of schools – crazy I Know but there it is.
I’m also interested in the comment that “your repeated and insistent demand for ‘newsroom’ and others to simply name which/how many schools should close is too simplistic to merit an answer”. I have to say this is complete utter tosh and an indefensible position. Remember both newsroom and Robert said ‘not all schools need to stay open’. The perfectly legitimate and obvious question to ask is – well how many do we need then then? How many can close?
The refusal to engage in this realistic debate reveals perhaps that there might be other agrendas involved. My reason for saying this is that Newsroom’s comments seem to me to be way over-the-top, verging almost on the hysterical with gratuitous insults liberally spread throughout the piece – a pice that goes far beyond what anyone could reasonably expect of an independent observer or commentator in these difficult times.
There might of course be a simple explanation to all of this – that ‘newsroom’ is not actually neutral in all of this at all but has a vested interest – perhaps being one of the leading campaigners against school closures. Is that the case?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@:Simon – from your postings it can only be read that you have not been to any of these meetings, met any of the children, nor does anything here really affect what your life is going to be like in the next few years.
For the kids at these meetings what is happening means the world, school is a huge part of their world and to belittle what they did and said is a sad indictment of you, not them.
For the communities the closure of their school is unacceptable, mostly because they have not been given a chance to give any options and to lose a school means decimation of their future.
The schools consultation in the summer did NOT suggest that closures were a sensible route.
ABC chose it for themselves, despite evidence of individual schools making significant savings alone, which could have been worked with.
and if Achaleven had been told that their community was to be so threatened and werem given the time to find alternatives, maybe they could have.
but they have not !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’ve just noticed that the revised proposals also have a new timetable which gives an 11 week consultation period with any closures to take effect from October 2011.
Are ForArgyll intending on covering this along with the other new details such as clarification of GAE, travel times and pupil forecasts?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Linnhe – “and to belittle what they did and said is a sad indictment of you”. I’m at a loss here – can you please show where I belittled kids?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I had noticed the time change Jimon. What a great idea!! So your wee primary 1 will start at their local school walked up by their parent/guardian, stay in school till around midday. New p1s don’t stay till 3 until after october break and I have been told in the past by A and B council this is to alow them to settle in to school.
Then come october they can get flung on a bus, do over 20 mile round trip to a new school with about 400 more pupils than the primary that they have attended for the last few months. Mmnn what an effective transitional period??!! I AM at a loss here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Simon – I’m sorry to see that your posts have descended into mainly attacking other comments, postulating conspiracy theories and still repeating ‘that question’. There are doubtless plenty of good arguments to be made from the council’s point of view – Jim succeeds in making some of them and actually debating the substance of the points being made. I’m starting to wonder, with respect: have you actually researched much of the detail of this issue? I do agree with you though – there’s a fair bit of polemic in the above article, but any savvy reader can cut through that and find plenty of fair comment also. I’ve selected a paragraph which sums up the current position, and quote it here, separated from the rest of the text to try & remove it from the ‘emotional’ and ‘offensive’ context:-
“The big issue here is that the very foundations of the proposal papers – feeble as they already are, now require total reconsideration. It is quite likely that, when compliance with the COSLA agreement is factored in, the savings left will be reduced to the point where they cannot remotely be set against the cost of the community destruction they will inflict.”
Well, even without the COSLA agreement, I feel that the optimistic 1.5 to 2% saving to be supposedly achieved from closing a third of all our primary schools is pretty disproportionate already. The financial argument is, and always has been, just too weak to support the proposals on its own. Hence all the guff about ‘educational benefits’ which is the truly offensive and preposterous part of this scheme. The awkward fact for all those who would just close small schools amid a lot of hand-wringing about severe financial pressures is that actually, a good many of these schools are currently providing pretty good value for money, particularly since the smaller schools are supported by additional grant from central government. Oh yes, and a plainly excellent education as well.
As far as the process itself goes, Statutory Consultation is supposed to be the last stage before the council makes a decision. This one has been presented to the public, effectively, as the first stage – all the preparation of these proposals has taken place in total secrecy. We need a process that we can have some faith in, and that we can be properly involved in right from the start. That’s what linnhe is getting at – we’ve been told that consulation is about to start, and therefore it’s too late to investigate possible alternatives including the positive suggestions being put forward by Achaleven. Remember that the government guidelines on closing rural schools require that all viable alternatives are properly considered BEFORE going to consultation. How is that remotely possible when you have not involved parent groups and communities in a proper in-depth discussion? And no, I don’t consider a few brief mass meetings in June (community councils not even invited) to come anywhere close to that.
Simon, I don’t think either Robert, ‘newsroom’ or I are suggesting that every school in Argyll could or should stay open. We cannot answer the question about ‘how many schools we can do without’ because this implies making a judgement on particular communities and their detailed circumstances which we, as individuals, know nothing of. Are you suggesting we just look at a league table of schools ordered by cost-per-pupil and say “Right, close the most expensive 30%”? That’s what I meant by ‘simplistic’ because cost is just one of a great many relevant factors – even the council is fully aware of that. How many do YOU think should close? How did you decide? How do you decide which ones? If you gave us your detailed views on this, we’d at least have something to debate with you.
For the record, I don’t endorse any description of our elected councillors as ‘monkeys’ and fully agree that they have a very difficult job to do in balancing the needs and wishes of their constituents with serious budget pressures. We have received considerable support from our own councillors who have genuinely listened to our concerns and done their best to extract requested information from the officials. They do, however, have a duty to hold the officials properly to account. If the proposals are still, as they appear to be, nowhere near being competent, then they need to be willing to press the ‘reboot’ button and start issuing some detailed directives to the department on what is expected of them.
And Jim – I too hope that Forargyll will report any positive developments as they come forward, and give any credit due on either side of the lines. Mind you, I wouldn’t personally describe the ‘GAE briefing paper’ as any kind of clarification… I’d hoped for an algorithm which could be checked in itself, and used to check the calculations. Apparently we’re not to be considered clever enough for that, so we just get more obfuscation ending with a ‘council knows what it’s doing’ paragraph. Sandy Longmuir’s GAE calculator, which is based on the government ‘greenbook’ spreadsheet, consistently gives figures over 30% higher. We still don’t know why.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks for your comments Tim however, I would argue I’ve not “descended into attacking other comments” I am pointing the inconsistencies and contradictionary nature of the comments made by the editorial ‘newsroom’ and others. These are the people who question the position the Council ha sput forward and it seems to me at any rate to be perfectly valid to highlight their inconsistenices in this matter.
I am glad to note that you too state that you are not arguing that every school in Argyll could or should stay open. ‘That question’ then as you call it still remains and honestly it it will just not go away. It is quite insufficient in my view for anyone to say – ok we do not need ALL the schools and then decline to say how many we do need, or even the criteria by which some schools should be selected for closure.
If people are arguing that closing schools lead to ‘community destruction’ (not a view I share) then we surely have to ask why there has not been a sustained campaign to have those schools that have been closed over the years re-opened? To argue that the availability of local primary school somehow guarantees social and economic regeneration of that community is being way-over simplistic.
We have to come back to reality here. We have too many school for the number of pupils. We are facing drastic cuts to public services that will affect every department and every service. It would be absolutley negligent to protect all schools especially since the HIMI and others have rightly pointed the under-occupancy in a great many of our schools.
You’ve asked me to suggest the criteria for shutting schools – I’m ok with the criteria the Council uses. Hoiwever, if the people against school closures have other criteria they wish to suggest that will still achieve savings – they should really bring them forward for public examination. Because given our economic difficulties ‘that question’ will just not go away.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Tim; I’m certainly a lay person when it comes to GAE calculations but I thought from the briefing paper that the explanation of the amount was clear and also matches up with Sandy Longmuir’s calculation.
From the briefing my understanding is that the Council make a contribution to the ‘pot’ of £0.755m and they are allocated £3.399m from this pot. The net effect being £3.399m – £0.755m = £2.644m.
This article from SRSN http://www.arg.srsn.org.uk/home/news/srsnfindsmajorfinancialerrorinconsultationproposals criticises the proposal papers for containing an error in the calculation and links to this spreadsheet;
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B7xD9Cc7zJJtYTIwY2I0MTktNmIyNC00Njk2LTgxMWYtNzZjNjczNTNiNzdm&hl=en
But in the same article they go on to say;
“Significantly, the figure of £2.6 million does appear in the Green Book GAE tables for the small rural schools adjustment. It is in the Argyll & Bute row in a column titled “effect”. The only problem is that this is the “effect” of a redistribution formula and not the total additional funding Argyll and Bute receive from having 1,286 qualifying pupils.”
So it seems to me that the Council are correct to use the “effect” amount as it is the amount the Council actually see after they make their own contribution.
The SRSN also says “but there is no doubt that an error has been made”. Are SRSN going to defend this statement?
I’m no expert on this GAE stuff so if anyone has more information which can help put this to rest it would be appreciated.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi Jim, more than happy to help here and no worries about not being a GAE expert – you are in good company. The confusion here is caused by the word “effect” at the top of the column in the Green Book. It is the effect of applying the redistribution formula and not the effect that having 1286 qualifying pupils has on Argyll & Bute’s finances. It is an easy mistake to make but in order to see the full effect of the losses you have to recreate the financial model the Scottish Government use. We have done this and a copy is on our Argyll website. http://www.arg.srsn.org.uk/home It contains all the formulae and is interactive. We have not hidden or locked the formulae in order that we are as open as possible about how it is calculated.
For the current year settlement the loss of a qualifying pupil is just over £2600. The figure in the proposal papers is £1823 or a 31% drop in current levels. We have tried to get the Council to reveal how they get this number but have failed miserably. On the 1st November we were told we would get an answer later that day – we are still waiting and the explanation in the new papers is completely inadequate.
I should probably point out that you are not the first person and Argyll are not the first Council to challenge us on our knowledge of this subject. Highland, Angus and East Ayrshire have all had to withdraw or alter proposal papers as a result of being found wanting on their understanding of the topic. In each case they started off by saying we were wrong.
I have had to explain to three Directors of Finance how their Council Tax deduction from Revenue Grant is calculated. Some have taken it better than others.
After speaking to some Councillors who say they have been taken through the Council’s calculation we think we are pretty sure where a major part of the error has come. I think some Councillors are now aware we are correct. We will not commit this to publication until we see the Council’s calculations in writing -that is the way we work – everything must be evidenced.
I should finish by saying that we have never set the figure of future loss because we were unsure of the budget cuts and how much may be taken off the line in the Green Books. It now looks like this will be very small but we cannot be certain until they are published.
If there is one thing you can do in your position in the Council, be it formal or just a supporter, it is to get them to release all the financial information these proposals are based on – then we can really get to work.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jim – I’m no expert either, which is why I think we need a proper explanation from the council. I don’t think there is any dispute about the total amount the council receives – it’s the amount by which this reduces ‘per pupil’ when a small school closes that we haven’t had explained. My (admittedly very vague) understanding is that this is not simply the 2.644m divided by the total sub-70 pupil roll, because the council still has to put the same amount into the pot. This is perhaps analogous to the difference between ‘marginal cost’ and ‘average cost’ in commercial terms.
The full algorithm is more complex still and I don’t have the full information on it, but as an engineer I’m not afraid of a few formulae, so come on A & B, let’s see your working! When I was at school, you could still get most of the marks in an exam by showing your working, even if the final answer was wrong…
The other aspect of the GAE issue is that there are two marginal cases where the council has made best-case assumptions in both. The first is the assumption that Keills and Port Charlotte, both currently comfortably within the GAE umbrella roll-wise, will amalgamate and then drop below a combined roll of 70 within a couple of years. Initially it will be 75, then 72 next year, so ALL the grant will be lost from these pupils. It’s a bold assumption they make that it will then drop and remain below 70 for the forseeable future in order to re-start the grant. The second is that Kilcreggan is bang on 70 just now and predicted to fall below this if it doesn’t close (thus coming within the scope of extra grant), and yet there is a zero net effect assumed in the calculations. In other words, different methodologies have been used in the two assumptions, both to maximise the apparent savings from the proposals. These are not trivial points – if they turned out wrong in both cases, the effect is £255k per year, even if you assume their per-pupil effect has been correctly shown. Intellectual dishonesty, anyone?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cheers Sandy, I guess we will have to watch this space and see if details of the Council’s calculations are published.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I would just like to ask why would young families not want to move to the shore of Loch Etive. We moved here 4 years ago, from Fife and have never regretted a single day. My eldest son attended a primary school there with over 400 pupils and due to his difficulties with writing he was told to use a computer work. This was due to the teacher not having the time to give him extra help. Since moving here he now writes everything himself, his reading/maths etc. age is well above him and he writes poems which reduces the staff to tears. I haven’t done that the school have.
Also since my younger child started school, he has been diagnosed with Tourettes and through the hard work of the staff he is coping really REALLY well. The classroom has been laid out in a way that is helps and encourages him. Could Lochnell change the classroom around to suit? from what I have heard NO. He is also well above his age group in his subjects.
No one can tell me that small schools do not work.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As Douglas Mackenzie demonstrated so conclusively at the Victory Hall meeting, the Council’s EDUCATIONAL case for closure is either incompetent or just plain mendacious. Either way it is WRONG. Educational consultants ought to know better, so I suspect the lie rather than the bungle. I understand that it is ILLEGAL to close a school solely for financial reasons, which is why the Council have had to cast about for an ‘educational’ or child welfare case. If they fly in the face of the evidence and STILL decide to persist in trying to close a school, then clearly the game’s not over – the goalposts will have shifted, that’s all. And I’m talking CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE. If the Council can act nasty then so can we. Remember the Poll Tax demos? The Council should be put on notice that if they persist with this illegal idiocy and don’t withdraw their so-called ‘Consultation’ proposals lock stock and barrel on Thursday 25th, then those of us who pay C/Tax and rates by direct debits will revoke them and pay monthly by cheque. And maybe there will be a delay, or a shortfall here and there…. just short of an Attachment of Earnings Order (which of course can be contested in court….). If we ALL do it, – including local businesses – the combined chaos and consequent administrative enforcement bill will be HUGE -far far greater than any putative savings involving the wanton destruction of schools and communities. The old slogan still applies: NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. And anyway, if our services are diminished we shouldn’t have to pay the same price for them. So watch out Argyll & Bute Council: think again, be properly legal and transparent – or else. And this could just be the start – there are lots of other ways people can be non-co-operative. We also have long memories – at least as long as the next election. Verb sap……DON’T DO IT!!!.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
for ardchatten mum, lovely story, lets all hope the councillors have seen sense in all the feedback they have recieved and do the right thing on thursday and beyond.
your story is repeated throughout the whole of argyll, i would guess, thats why we can not concede to purely fiscal talk, when the true cost of these proposals is not just in coins but in the very special process called education. which collectively between schools and parents we achieve in a world that seems to try and make this more difficult than it need be.
some individuals on this site seem to be on the dark side of life, lets show them the way to the light. small schools work well full stop.” bigger is not better” thats just hype and as unreal as our supposed “romantic” view of life in a small community. which smacks of jealosy and disregard for other valid human life. hopefully the dream has not gone yet.
our children are worth it, every penny.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
sandy, brilliance.
tim, tremendous.
b tyger, me too, the best has not been released and the more they pull in their direction the more kinetic energy we are accumulating. they can unleash it if they wish but i am feeling a bit deniro on this issue. so i’m with you on the CAPITALS !!! i was writing my comment above then when i submitted THE TYGER appeared. pure unadulterated genious.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pingback: Argyll News: School closures: the message from North Lorn is that concerted action can save all the schools :Argyll,Argyll Bute Council,school closures,save our schools, | After Today News