This is a summary of the extent of the flaws and errors in the school closure proposals which the Council is shortly to consider sending to statutory public consultation. (A key related article, just published, is linked at the foot of this piece.)
We will be carrying a series of analyses over the following weeks, demonstrating the detail of key points we are making below – which we evidence here in outline.
Why the proposal papers are not competent within the terms of the Act
As we see it, the issue is not now about which schools should close – but about the fact that these proposals cannot be used or accepted as the basis for closing any school.
The Schools Consultation Scotland Act 2010 has certain keystone requirements – deal breakers. The proposals do not comply with the act.
- They do not even trouble to make mention of, never mind examine, the impact on the affected communities of the loss of their school. The Act requires them to do so. Non-compliance with this requirement is an automatic reason for the Scottish Government to call-in the case. With these proposals, that can only mean the need to call-in every single case, to judge them as one and to reprieve them as one, since they share the lack of this required consideration.
- The proposals present the core criterion in law for closure – the educational benefit – in the simplistic mantra of the consultant hired to deliver a one-size-fits-all reason for what the education department wants to do. It is to conduct a wholesale closure of Argyll and Bute’s primary schools under the umbrella notion that ‘bigger schools are better’. This is fundamentally unjustifiable in the lack of competent supporting research; in the existence of statistically sound and substantially sampled research to the contrary; and in the context of Argyll and Bute, where there is abundant local evidence of good educational experiences in our rural primary schools and where fewer bigger schools also come at an unacceptable social and economic cost.The main supporting research for the ‘bigger schools are better’ riff is the Reynolds report, conducted in rural Wales and long challenged on the grounds of the statistical competence of its small and unrepresentative sampling and for its applying an alien dogma in much the same way as the education department has attempted to do here in Argyll. The statistically sound and substantially sampled research to the contrary is found in England’s CSPAR report, with a sample of 10,000, finding unequivocally that small schools deliver a significantly better educational experience than large ones – and already evidenced by Barcaldine in making ‘mince’ of the education department’s proposal to close their school.
- The picture the proposals present of the core criterion for closure in each individual case – the educational benefit of the proposed alternative school – is largely not defended in the papers – beyond endless repetition of ‘bigger schools are better’. In fact in most cases, the total educational experience at the designated receiving school could not be successfully demonstrated to be better. Moving small children from the small rural primary school at Luss, a secluded and tranquil lochside village to the biggest primary school in Argyll, Hermitage Primary in Argyll’s largest town, Helensburgh, cannot be defended as providing a better educational experience. Moving the small children from three rural schools in North Lorn to create a cohort of up to 177 at Lochnell, an open plan school with half a dozen wash basins and a few lavatories, is similarly indefensible in the same terms. In the Rosneath peninsula, the proposal is to close two good schools, Kilchreggan and Rosneath, with substantial rolls and with the Ministry of Defence already concerned about the impact of these closures on its own plan to increase significantly the staff at the nearby submarine base at Faslane. Here the plan is to transfer the 70+ pupils at Kilchreggan and the 90+ pupils at Rosneath to Garelochhead, in daily single journey times on the upper limit of 45 minutes. Educational benefit? We have been told that parents at Rosneath are so concerned about the local perception of the educational standards obtaining at Garelochhead, that if Rosneath is forced to close, they will be putting in placement requests to send their children to Helensburgh Primary.
Let’s move on to explore why the proposal papers are not competent in any terms.
Rationalisation
First of all there is their broad conceptual basis in the Education Review – the need to ‘rationalisation’ the school estate in Argyll and Bute. This means moving to a situation where there are fewer and larger primary schools in the area, with fewer teachers and larger class sizes.
Intellectually, this is of a piece with the calibre of the proposals as a whole.
It is blind to context – and yet, with Argyll, context is all. This is where we are. Argyll is what it is.
We are not a city or a large conurbation where this sort of rationalisation can make more sense. There it does not destroy the social and economic sustainability of communities. There small children do not have to suffer two 45 minute journeys each day – to and from school.
Argyll in its topography and its demographic, sees small far-flung communities with long journey times to anywhere. Its culture is the richest possible, with each community a fully fledged microculture, having been bred to independence and self-reliance by the sheer difficulty of normal travel and communication.
The poet William Carlos Williams was infuriated by the literary habit then of imposing formulae on poetry, requiring poets to choose a form – like an ode or a sonnet – to shape what they wanted to say. He said: ‘A crab needs a crab shaped box’ – with the image carrying all the connotations of deformity, should a crab be forced into a standard square box.
Well Argyll is a crab, with limbs stretching seawards and eyes on the islands – and its scattering of small rural primary schools is the crab shaped box of the education provision it needs for its youngest children.
The rationalisation proposed by the ‘rude mechanicals’ is the deforming box that would roughly amputate the limbs that allow the crab to move according to its nature.
To rationalise the school estate in this way, you would need to rationalise Argyll first.
The Scottish national budget and the COSLA agreement
The Scottish national budget and the conditions attaching to the agreement with COSLA – the imperative of maintaining teacher numbers and the teacher:pupil ratios knocks the bottom out of the mechanics of the proposals, operationally and in savings.
The ‘amalgamations’ proposed in the ‘rationalisation’ are based on one principle – losing teacher numbers (31-33 in the proposals) and consequently seeing remaining teaching staff work with larger classes.
It is this simple formula that brings the bulk of the savings claimed in the proposals – and both of its planks are in flat non-compliance with the COSLA agreement.
This means that current teacher numbers and current teacher:pupil ratios must be maintained. If they are, then any remaining savings that might be strained from a rejigging of the entire set of proposals would not come near the cost of community destruction involved in shutting any school.
If the Council were to persist with the proposals and opt for non-compliance, it would suffer a penalty of seeing its own budget cut raised from the lesser 2.6% within the agreement to 6.4% – a cost of £9 million, which wipes out the (overestimated) savings claimed for the entire closure programme.
Curriculum for Excellence
The proposals state that small schools cannot adequately deliver the Curriculum for Excellence. Yet the supporting thesis of the Curriculum for Excellence itself makes much of its appropriateness for small schools – and the evidence from Argyll’s small rural schools, ignored in the report (which looked for no positives and no alternatives to closure) is that they are delivering this curriculum strongly.
Moreover, the ‘amalgamations’ will see larger class sizes and fewer teachers in the context of the ‘active learning’ at the heart of the Curriculum for Excellence. Many of the receiving schools - like Lochnell – will see classrooms packed with desks which may – just - accommodate their new class sizes but will leave absolutely no room for the fluid formation of team groups required in active learning.
School capacity
The Scottish Rural Schools Network is finalising its analysis of the proposals claims on the capacity issue. In the meantime, this indicates the travel of thought and scrutiny.
Sandy Longmuir of SRSN points to statements in the proposal papers:
- “The Council has some of the poorest and most inefficient school occupancy levels in Scotland. According to the most recent edition of the Scottish Government’s schools database, 59% of the Council’s primary schools have occupancy levels under 50% with a national average of only 20% of primary schools having occupancy levels under 50%. A comparison of Argyll and Bute primary schools with 10 authorities that might also be considered rural shows that the comparator group has only 29% of its primary schools with occupancies below 50%’.
- ‘Given the conditions identified above Members tasked the Executive Director of Community Services to review the efficiency of the current school estate and consider how the scope of the estate may require to be reduced to ensure it is operating on a sustainable basis’.
Mr Longmuir then says: ‘So all of this is because Argyll lags behind other rural authorities in capacity measures? It is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the statements.
‘So – what if it wasn’t true? What if the difference between Argyll and the other rural Authorities was almost entirely due to the fact that Argyll and Bute were calculating their capacities in a different manner?
- ‘The average internal floor area per existing pupil in Argyll’s small schools (<800 sqm) is within 1 sqm of other rural Authorities.
- ‘The average floor areas of the schools in Argyll are remarkably similar to those in other areas.
- ‘Argyll has an average occupancy for these schools of 42%. The comparator Authorities are running at over 60% capacity.
- Same size schools, roughly the same floor area per existing pupil – so why a 50% discrepancy in the occupancy rates?
‘It is because Argyll are calculating capacity like no other rural Council.
‘Take Lochnell.. It has a floor area of 736sqm and a capacity of 177. Arnage Primary in Aberdeenshire has a floor area of 746sqm and a capacity of only 71. It is not alone
‘There are 289 schools in Scotland with a bigger floor area than Lochnell but with a smaller rated capacity.
‘There is only 1 school in the whole of rural Scotland (Lochcarron) which has a larger capacity with a smaller floor area. (and we are pretty sure this is a reporting error)
‘The next 20 schools in rural Authorities on the Government list which are larger in floor area than Lochnell have an average a capacity of 100 pupils (56% less of that of Lochnell).
‘Under no circumstances should any Local Authority be using comparisons of occupancy performance based on the Government tables. They should not be used to convince the public that any authority is markedly out of step with any others. Any such statement is statistically unsound’.
GAE per capita grant calculations
These were wrong in the initial proposals and despite being superficially amended in response to what little was understood of the Scottish Rural Schools Network team’s criticism and advice, they remain fundamentally wrong.
After the initial press release and before the proposals were first published, SRSN – experts in this field – had calculated a loss from the GAE grant due to the proposals of £750,000. This was calculated in a process which corrected the errors the Councijl’s finance people had unknowingly made – but errors which stubbornly remain in the proposals.
It is important to note that this loss is a per annum, after the two year delay and in perpetuity. The two year delay is only specific to this year. Two out of every three years are qualifying years for the calculation. This uses a formula averaging two years of pupil numbers in every 3 year settlement. The previous two years’ rolls will be used in the current settlement being adjusted now. Next year is a missed year and then 2012 will be back as a calculating year.
The SRSN can put current levels of GAE into the Council’s proposal summary but until the Green Book is published in February 2011 for the current settlement, it cannot forecast exactly what future loss will be.
The other factor here is the matter of which schools will be qualifying schools in 2012? Port Charlotte, Strachur and Kilcreggan could all enter or leave the calculation. If any of them came into the equation they would increase losses by around £185,000 each.
It is worth noting that immediately following the initial publication of the closure proposals, the Scottish Rural Schools Network team asked to see the basis for the Council finance team’s calculations on GAE in the proposals; and that despite an assurance they they would provide them ‘not today but shortly’ and despite repeated requests for them- they have been unable to provide them.
In contrast, the SRSN team has published their calculations on its website in the form of a spreadsheet calculator. They have not locked or hidden the formulae. Sandy Lonhgmuir syas: ‘It is there to be shot down if it is wrong. (which it isn’t)’ .
Population statistics
Shortly after publication of the initial proposals, we showed -in detail – that the population figures quoted in defence of school closures were seriously flawed. We put in an immediate Freedom of Information request to see the basis of the educations department’s calculations since statements in the proposal were largely unevidenced.
This actually arrived some time later and when we looked at it we reaised why it been handed over so quickly. They still thought they were right.
We decided to make no comment other than acknowledge receipt and to wait to see if the penny had dropped in the final proposals now to be put forward for going out to statutory public consultation.
It hadn’t – so here we go.
The initial proposals stated:
- ‘In the school session 2010/11 the school roll fell below 6,000 to 5,816. Overall this represents a decline of 36% over 35 years’.
- ‘Rolls are expected to drop further by about 12% by 2015 and 19% by 2020′.
Now the proposals say give these latter figures as 7% and 8% – but this is not accurate either. 4.4% of the drop is because of a glitch in GROS figures which shows this drop from 2010 to 2011. It has already been counted in the first phrase above ‘In the school session 2010/11 the school roll fell below 6,000 to 5,816.
It is of course improper to count the drop twice and then describe it as a ‘further drop’.
Then in the claims made on a falling population, the Council evidences ‘a sustained recovery’ starting in 2022. The low point is actually no fewer than five years earlier than that – in 2017. Rolls are not projected to fall below that point by the end of the projection period.
We have a very great deal more detail to show, if required, the fundamental errors in the proposals’ presentation of a population falling so rapidly and for so long as to justify the closure of 25 rural prinary schools.
Suffice it to say that this picture is unreliable and typically skewed to defend the closures.
Travel times
These are critical issues - Education Director, Cleland Sneddon, gave two public guarantees at the Council meetiong on 2nd November:
- that the journey times required in each proposal – which were full of flaws, but all curiously guilty of underestimation – would be recalculated properly in the revised proposals to come
- and that any school whose travel time was found to be over the 45 minute maximum, wold automatically removed from the list.
Since then, several schools have conducted real time reconstructions of the exact route, the stoppings at pick up places, the loading on to the bus of small children, have timed and documented their journeys and have filmed them, to show that it was an honest exercise – and returned figures over 45 minutes.
Only Luing has been removed from the list. That is for the dishonourable reason that it was such a ridiculous inclusion in the list that it was, from the outset, clearly intended to be the sacrificial anode to deflect criticism and demonstrate – ahem – that ‘we have a listening council’.
Luss school, going through the final version of its closure proposal has found that the travel time now given for Luss pupils on Loch Lomondside to be transported to Helensbugh on the Clyde is set at 41 minutes – a figure arrived at by pausing only for 30 seconds at each pick up point. Luss has 8 small children getting on at Luss itself, 4 at Muirlands and a couple at Arden. That amount to another 5 minutes on the time, at least.
Actually, we’re getting tired of this…
We can literally demolish these unable proposals on a point by point basis – on evidence not opinion. There are matters like:
- The education department has been unable, despite repeated requests from threatened schools, to provide them with the information on how the given ‘cost per pupil’ figure is calculated. No one knows, for example, whether this is inclusive or exclusive of the per capita GAE grant made in respect of each pupil in a rural school with a roll below 70 pupils.
- Options other then closure have not been considered.
- Housing developments already in planning have not been considered in relation to school rolls.
- The error strewn nature of the proposals has actually been compounded by new errors and unexplained alternations.
- The overall impact on small children and on their lives of a 45 minute journey to and another 45 minutes from school every day has not been considered. (This is the commuting life of an adult.)
- The impact on small children of the disruption to their sense of security and stability in loss of place and of local friendships, with their dispersal into larger classes has not been considered.
- The success of schools in the list for closure has not been taken into account – Barcaldine, Rosneath…
Conclusions
There has been so much distress to children made anxious about their futures; so much stress to communities faced with a death warrant in the proposal to close their schools; so much focused anger – with one parent describing ‘a blast of cold fury’; so much communal effort in instant rebuttal – all demanded and spent on the basis of proposals fit only for the trash can.
These proposals are – demonstrably – unequivocally unable.
No single school can be closed – with that decision ultimately upheld by the Scottish Government – on the basis of this case.
Will Councillors fail to recognise the seriousness and chaotic depths of this situation and vote on 25th November to approve sending this ragbag of flaws and errors to statutory public consultation?
If they do, they will be taking corporate responsibility for these proposals, as they will be presented to the electorate as Council proposals.
If they do so, they will have to do it on the basis of informed opinion.
And if they do so, we and their constituents will be very keen to hear each of them account for and be questioned in detail on quote how that informed opinion led to the decision to proceed – on this basis?
New article related to this:
Another fabulous, evidenced and convincing tirade from Argyll’s own Fumin’ Newsroom. Brilliant stuff, and the basis for every school’s case to get the council to drop their proposals.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have the absolute confidence that the SNP will as ever respond adequately and wholly to public concerns. It is a listening Party
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Normally I’m not lost for words, but this time I don’t think I’ve much to add to the above…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Will Councillors fail to recognise the seriousness and chaotic depths of this situation and vote on 25th November to approve sending this ragbag of flaws and errors to statutory public consultation?”
Hopefully they will recognise the seriousness of the budget situation and allow the consultation to go ahead so solid cases for each school can be constructed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Jim: The savings generated from this indiscriminate slash-and-burn scheme are very much less than given, as the various errors serially reduce the claim.
You may not have been reading the detail accurately, but it is the very nature of the Scottish budget and the deal done with COSLA to enable the freeze on Councjl Tax to continue for a further year that will, if these proposals carry on, see Argyll and Bute faced with a non-compliance penalty of £9 million pounds on their own budget. This, by chance, happens to be the full amount of the exaggerated savings claimed in thee proposals.
The Government/COSLA agreement, in return for local authority compliance with the conditions attached, offers a lower than expected budget cut of 2.6% (about £6 million) and, in the case of non-compliance, raises this to a cut of 6.4% (£15 million).
Two of the conditions are maintenance of teacher numbers and maintenance of teacher:pupil ratios
The bulk of the savings generated by the closure proposals are based losing teachers and raising teacher:pupil ratios in larges classes).
This is now an utter no-brainer.
But this does not mean that we anticipate anything other than a lemming-like vote to accept corporate responsibility for the proposals in approving them for public consultation.
We do, though, in this event, anticipate an endgame where the Scottish Government will have absolutely no choice but to call in every one of the proposal papers and reprieve every one of the schools because as an entirety, the proposals do not comply with the law.
It is, as we have said, no longer about which schools may close but about the fact that not a single schools may legitimately be closed on the basis of these irretrievably flawed proposals.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jim, I have been sitting back reading pages of your propaganda for days now and I think you need a wee dose of reality.
How many of the proposals have you actually read? How many have you actually investigated for accuracy?
On behalf of Luss Primary, I will tell you about ours. By reading the basics in ours there is a “proposed” saving of £61,108.
Here is what the council do not want you to see – at the end of this school year, Hermitage Primary will drop down to 15 classes and thus they make a saving of one class for the council. So say roughly £32,000 of savings – but thats from Hermitage Primary, not Luss.
Due to the children from Luss, they will need to create a 16th class again (extra P6). So £61,108 take away that saving of £32,000 is £29,108.
How much does A&BC get in GAE grant for Luss, well according to them £36,478. Now SRSN disagree and say its much higher (in the range of £50,000 to £52,000) but even using the council’s figures, you can see exactly £29,108 is less. Therefore, there is no saving by closing Luss.
Please note, we are now into our 3rd week of waiting for more figures from the council to make these calculations exact, but thats the jist of it.
Add into the fact that our bus journey will be using the council’s own calculations, at least 47.5 minutes. I beg to ask, why are we still on the list?
So Jim, going back to my original questions… what do you have to say for yourself now?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pingback: Argyll News: School Closures: response to the statutory consultation process :Argyll,school closure,public consultation,cooperation, | For Argyll
The original article is brilliant, to the point and covers all facts very well. Fiona – spot on, each school could put forward a plan to help cut costs on a school by school basis, and that includes all schools not only those on the list. Jim don’t pile on further insults – we are all very well aware of the financial situation.
The savings proposed from closures, and the negative way this proposal has been presented are insulting, we do not deserve to have our families put through this nonsense no matter what financial savings are required. Argyll councillors should be proud of their rural schools, and the fantastic education to be had for all our children, and stop this ridiculous ill-conceived plan before it hits the table on the 25th.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
newsroom; I understand the points you are making but I do not believe it is appropriate to cut and run from one of the most important challenges the Council has faced in a long time. I don’t believe that all of the schools that we have offer value for money or can justify their existence. The claims that countless communities will be destroyed are overplayed. We have too many teachers and a crumbling school estate, the ball and chain of some of our tiny schools needs cast off.
I am absolutely sure that the budget we were delivered last week will be torn-up and rewritten post election. There are also still years of cuts coming and the Council need to position themselves ride it out. It would be incredibly foolish for the Council to base long term decisions on a one year budget delivered right before an election.
The losers of complete abandonment of school closures is ultimately the children, the education budget will still contract, resources will be spread thinner and the Council will be throwing money into the blackhole known as the school estate. Tough choices for difficult times, you bet!
Fiona Phillips; if you had been at all diligent when reading my posts you would have discovered that I am not advocating that all of the proposed closures go ahead. Quite the contrary, I have already stated that the closure of Barcaldine does not appear to have any case supporting it. I do believe as the Council have done, that the initial list of proposals should include a comprehensive list of schools where amalgamation is possible. From this list the merits of each proposal should be assessed.
I have read all of the proposals but I am in no position to comment on all of them. I am not familiar with all of the schools involved, the areas they are situated in and the other local characteristics. As with Barcaldine I am sure there are other schools on the list for which the case for closure is not compelling, you seem to believe that Luss is one of them. If your argument is sound then we can only hope the Councillors make the right decision on Thursday.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
jim, wheres simon ?
all the arguments profered so far are sound jim, your argument is faltering, i have been reading your posts, less so as time has passed. mainly due to the repeating “question” that i foolishly answered.
The fact remains the proposals are fatally flawed and should be discarded with the recycling like the trash they are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Hopefully they will recognise the seriousness of the budget situation and allow the consultation to go ahead so solid cases for each school can be constructed.” Jim
Jim, shouldn’t these solid cases have been constructed BEFORE they go to the consultation phase? That way, they are not going to enter into costly and completely unnecessary consultations for schools who obviously are not suitable candidates. AND minimising the obvious distress caused to children and parents where their school’s proposals are, I believe someone used the techinical term, “mince”.
We all know the council must save money, same as every person in the Western World at the moment, and that means, some schools will need to close. So why not sit down with all the ACCURATE figures and a couple of financial experts and perhaps the education department (they can make the tea) and then work out SERIOUS contenders for closure/amalgamation?
a. It will be cheaper, following say 10 proposals through, as opposed to 25 when you know there are a good few of that 25 will be chucked out on travel times and savings not being there.
b. Emotional distress to children, parents and communities will be limited. What if only 10 schools need to close? Thats another 15 schools, hundreds of children, all in turmoil for no reason. The council has a responsibility to ensure the welfare of its constituents and causing them this worry and concern is contrary to that responsibility.
Once each of these proposals have been thoroughly scrutinised, THEN they should be put forward for consultation.
The proposals we have now, thrown together by a bunch of Quality Improvement Officers with notepads are not accurate and they give no evidence to prove the comments made regarding educational “benefits”. They are laughable in places. For example, they say the playground at Hermitage Primary is better than the one at Luss. Excuse me??? A great big slab of tarmac is better than your own private patch of the National Park? And they wonder why the proposals cannot be taken seriously?
Jim, these people at the council are paid, and paid well I will add to manage the council’s assets and obligations as service providers. They are not paid to provide wholly inaccurate drivel which they have done.
They want to be taken seriously, give us serious proposals!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
where is simon, i was just reminded by the word drivel,
with just jim commenting its like listening to a single jedward. watching ernie with no eric, laurel sans hardie.
its just not the same.
i agree with fiona, the powers that be better let us all off the hook we have lives to live.
children to care for.
and jim, it is the crumbling argyll and bute council that we should be casting off(and that is putting it politely). there are more savings to be made there as you have said youself.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Fiona; As I have said, it is my opinion that considering an extensive list of schools for closure is preferable over a shortlist. It allows for the public to get a broader view of primary education in Argyll and to put the costs of various schools into perspective. Had a shortlist been presented then those at risk of closure would simply be sitting here pointing their finger at all the other schools asking why the aren’t included.
If you believe that the people responsible for the proposal documents are fundamentally incompetent then you need to petition our elected officials. It’s your opinion that these proposals are tripe, what is to say the next lot would be any better if the same people are responsible? Perhaps you should be leading a revolution, have them all sacked, clean slate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In response to Jim – “Had a shortlist been presented then those at risk of closure would simply be sitting here pointing their finger at all the other schools asking why the aren’t included.” Erm, Jim – that is happening now! The only way that won’t happen is if you release proposals on all 80 schools. So get real.
Jim, I used to work for the council and I was paid roughly a fifth of these QIOs salaries. I had the responsibility of paying out millions of pounds of the councils money on a monthly basis on salaries. If I had made those kind of screw ups with figures, I would have been sacked. Plain and simple.
These people are supposedly qualified and with experience and paid massive amounts to do their jobs. They should be sacked. Or if they had any self-respect, quit.
It seems I have failed to convince you that certainly in our case, the proposal is “tripe”, even after providing you with evidence. We’ve studied them and say they are wrong, so have SRSN, members of the press, the list goes on… and yet you are of the opinion, well maybe its all us who are wrong and the council are right? So Jim, put your money where you mouth is… select one proposal, any one of them, check the figures and tell us if its right. I DARE YOU!
And yes, if they did rework the proposals as I have suggested, this time with the addition of some financial experts, not just a bunch of Quality Improvement Officers, who by the way, are there to ensure delivery of certain parts of the Curriculum for Excellence and deal with parent/teacher problems, and have absolutely no background to be making these highly influencial financial judgements. I would most certainly hope the proposals would be of better quality. Lets face it, they can’t get much worse.
If a CEO of a million pound company was presented with proposals, flawed with incorrect figures and factual inaccuracies, would he or she accept them without comment, without holding those who produced it to task? No, they’d be lambasted. We all know it. Argyll & Bute want to save millions of pounds? Get in someone who can deal with those kinds of figures.
You have admitted yourself that you have not done any research into these documents, until then, your opinion is un-informed and ignorant.
VIVE LA REVOLUTION!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
First, congrats to For Argyll for an excellent synopsis of where the debate has reached (if it can be called a debate – it seems remarkably one sided despite the best efforts of Jim). One of the problems we have at Barcaldine is that the Council’s case is so weak, poorly researched and poorly presented that we find it difficult to encompass all of our objections into something digestible – though “mince” comes close!
Jim, your argument might hold water if the whole of Argyll’s primary school network had been put into the pot so we could see the whole picture. For instance, there are 5 primaries in North Lorn; Lismore, Strath of Appin, Barcaldine, Ardchattan and Lochnell. The proposals don’t consider North Lorn as an educational region. Instead Barcaldine, Lochnell and Ardchattan are fingered and Achaleven (which has more in common with Dunbeg and Taynuilt) is added to the mix. There is no attempt to look at how the primaries in the area manage to successfully overcome the problems which small schools face and see how this could be strengthened and built upon. There is also no attempt to look at the economic and social development of the area as a whole and what educational provision will be required in the future. If all the primaries had been put up for consideration then we would not have had the stress on all of the pupils, parents and teachers that the current proposals have engendered.
Let’s be completely honest: it is clear that there are current demographic problem with Ardchattan that is leading to a high per pupil cost at that school. It is right, therefore, that scrutiny is made of whether or not the school is viable. However, the consequences of any decision to close Ardchattan have also to be closely scrutinised. These are breezily glossed over in the proposal document. Jim comments that the social impact of closure has been exaggerated but in the case of Ardchattan the social impact is not over-stated. Loss of the school will almost certainly lead to the failure of the village to attract new families and the slow decline and eventual death of the village as a functioning social entity. We might consider this a necessary sacrifice given the financial state we find ourselves in. But let’s ensure we have fully explored the options available to us before we commit ourselves to such an almost irrevocable step. The current proposals fall well short of proper scrutiny.
We are only now just managing to extract the detailed financial figures from the Council for the North Lorn schools but it is obvious that there are interesting differences in the financial performance of the different schools that suggest that significant savings can be made in their operating costs. The proposal document was very dismissive of some of the suggested alternatives to closure but now the communities are beginning to have access to the detailed figures we can begin to firm up on these proposals. The closure plan savings are overstated (at least for North Lorn but I suspect overall) and it may be that properly thought through plans could suggest savings that are not that far removed from the actual savings that closure would produce but without the social cost.
I have not talked of Achaleven and I don’t intend to say more other than that is ridiculous to suggest that a village the size of Connel cannot support a viable and cost effective primary. It is a damning indictment of the Council’s Education department that they have presided over the decline of what used to be not so long ago one of the finest primaries in Argyll and that their only answer to its problems is closure.
There is also a tendency to try and excuse what has been a poorly thought out and executed plan on the basis that we need to find savings. Pointing out the glaring errors in the documents; the fatuous arguments about improving education through reducing the numbers of teachers and increasing the size of primary classes; the dodgy statistics on demography and the likely social impact are dismissed as churlish, naive perhaps even selfish. Most of us agree that money has to be saved but the savings have to be cost effective (in its widest sense), necessary and legal. One of the striking features of the proposals is that despite threatening the closure of one third of the primary schools in Argyll, the savings are almost trivial compared with the overall Council budget.
One of the good things that has come from this exercise has been the release of information (albeit often shaky) on how much schools actually cost to run in Argyll. It would be good to see more and comparable information on the overall expenditure of the Council (the Education department’s detailed budget would do for starters). This would allow a better appreciation of how OUR money is being spent and perhaps lead to community-led proposals to achieve the necessary savings that the Council officials seem unable to find except through a drastic and socially damaging closure plan.
Just to finish: I’m not sure if the same is true of all the proposals but for us in North Lorn, the proposal is that we send or children to their existing schools in August 2011 and then have them transfer to the receiving school after the October break. So P1′s start at one school and then are transferred to a new school outside of their village about 2.5 months after they start. That these proposals are all about money rather than educational benefit is manifest in this single, contemptible action.
Sorry to go on – I did say that it is difficult to be succinct when there is so much wrong with these proposals. I would ask all of Argyll’s councillors to take the opportunity on Thursday to reject putting the closure proposals out to consultation; not because I believe no schools should ever close but because the current proposals are deeply flawed and that with proper engagement with communities, alternative plans can be developed that will deliver savings while preserving the excellent educational and social fabric of Argyll.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
PS apologies for the problems with plurals in para 3!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well said Dr McKenzie
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Taking Dr McKenzie’s third-last paragraph, I think I heard recently that the UK Chancellor had begun a process whereby the detail of departmental expenditure would be published online, so that we could become a ‘nation of auditors’. Something similar at local authority level would allow the full and obvious talent of the people of Argyll to engage seriously in helping the council to see where money could be saved.
The meetings which were held in June were ostensibly to tell the public how much needed to be trimmed from the education budget and ask for their suggestions as to how it could be achieved. But no detailed information about where the money is spent was presented either before or during the meetings, which duly came to the pre-ordained conclusions. I think this is what used to be called ‘mushroom management’
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jim – I’m astounded that you think a large-scale Statutory Consulation is an appropriate way to publicly consider a broad range of options for the school estate. Statutory Consultation is a formal, legally defined and time-limited process which ends with one of two conclusions: closure or not. The process should not even start until the ‘broad range of options’ has been properly considered.
You persist in believing that we are calling for all schools to be kept open. We have consistently said this is not the case. I’m sure you must agree that considering any individual school for closure is a serious matter that is not amenable to any kind of ‘broad-brush’ approach – that is all we are saying. Any individual school deserves no less than an individually considered proposal – one that involves the community in its presentation and includes a genuine discussion of all the issues involved. You think we’re all a bunch of reactionaries trying to stop the march of progress. Actually all we want is a fair hearing, and I doubt if there’s anyone left in any of the communities affected by the current process who believes we’ll get anything like that from it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is eleven o’clock, Mon 22-11-10 and I have a a copy of the proposal.
At clause 8.1 it is written thus:
“This document was considered by the Council on 25 November 2010
when it was agreed that it should be issued as a basis for consultation.”
How was that done then?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Christopher: triumph of optimism over experience (same as last time)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hurrah for Dr McKenzie!
A brilliant expose of the errors, omissions and fundamental flaws in the whole proposal.
My only addition would be to draw to everyone’s attention once again that the law on the procedures for school closures, passed in Holyrood at the behest of the present SNP government, proceeds on the principle that any rural school closure must be on the basis of better educational provision and not on the basis of economics. One may argue about that but that is the law, and any change to that would have to be passed by a majority of the members of the Parliament who would then have to answer to their electors.
Every one of the proposals for closure started with the basis for the case. Every part of that basis was related to economics – it was left to the consultant Mr Bloomer to put the case that bigger schools are better. Mr Bloomer’s case may have merit – his only problem is that few education professionals agree with him. But the paid staff initiating these proposals must have because they paid him £1.000 a day to help them to write the original document.
Nuff said.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To Gerry: where did you get the figure of £1000 per day for Mr Bloomer’s consultancy rate? It would be very interesting if it was indeed as high as that.
I didn’t go on about the educational case in my above post not because it is unimportant but rather it is very difficult to write about everything that is wrong with these proposals at the same time. Gerry is quite correct: there is a legal presumption against school closures purely on financial grounds so there must be evidence of educational benefit in the proposals (and note the word “evidence”). This is tricky for the Council as it is difficult to argue that decreasing teacher numbers and increasing class sizes will result in educational benefits. The opposite is the case. For a good introduction to the evidence on this have a look at:
Blatchford P. (2009) Class size. in Anderman, Eric (ed.). Psychology of Classroom Learning: An Encyclopedia, Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, (http://www.classsizeresearch.org.uk/cs%20psychology.pdf )
The online article is easy to read and gives a very good and definitive summary of educational research as it currently relates to class sizes.
To get round this, the Council have two major thrusts to their arguments. The first I actually have some sympathy with. Basically there has to be enough money to support the educational service and at a time of financial hardship it is necessary to look at making savings so that overall educational excellence can be maintained. However, scratch a little deeper and this argument evaporates. The proposals do not cover the overall expenditure of the Council or even of the Educational department. We are being told that cuts must be made in the provision of schools without seeing the overall picture. As I said earlier, the actual savings are pretty modest set against the educational and social damage of shutting 26 schools. I was gob-smacked to see that the projected savings from closing Minard and Glassary were less than £32K. It was the education department themselves that warned that salami slicing would not make significant savings and yet here they are salami slicing schools.
For us to have any sympathy with the argument, the whole of the Educational Department’s budget must be open to scrutiny and for them to demonstrate where all of their cuts are proposed so that the proposed school closures can be set in some sort of context. If school closures are being proposed without a accompanying and very significant cut in central management then I think I know where most people would like to see the Education Department stick their proposals.
The second argument around the educational benefit of these closures is that small schools cannot deliver good educational and social development because there is an insufficient critical mass to form effective, age-related “peer” groups in the school. Note that there is no definition of what a small school actually is nor what the minimum size of peer group you need it to be effective. The Council proposals are also clever in asserting that the small schools will find it difficult to deliver effectively the Curriculum for Excellence. As the CfroE is relatively new, there have been no studies on the effect of class sizes on its delivery. The Council can therefore say what it likes without risk of a humiliating refutation from the academic literature. Equally though they cannot claim that their assertions are any more than speculation.
There is in fact good reasons to believe that in the class sizes found in our typical small schools are particularly good for group learning – one of the things the CforE is very keen on.Again, the Blatchford paper I have cited above is a good resume of the state of the art in this reagrd. The ability to learn in your own environment is also highly thought of. In the case of Barcaldine, our children go 100m one way into Sutherland’s Grove to study Biodiversity or participate in orienteering, or 50m the other way onto the shores of Loch Creran, where they can do more nature studies or do canoeing. The children from the village also have the chance to walk or cycle to school so they get to appreciate the changing seasons (as well as building fitness).
There are thus definite advantages to small class sizes when it comes to delivering the CofE, many of which will be lost if the proposals are pursued in their current form.
The Council documents also make a related argument that as small schools lack a critical mass of supporting parents and thus they find it difficult to fund raise and organise extra curricular activities. Again, this is a superficially appealing argument but experience suggests that it is not true. I thought Barcaldine was doing well in fund raising till I heard of the success that Ardchattan has had. I cannot comment on other schools but I am constantly astonished by the number, variety and quality of the extra curricular activities that Barcaldine offers (my wee Shona is looking forward to ice skating tomorrow). Their playground is awash with wild life ponds, vegetable gardens, climbing frames, fitness equipment and a football pitch. When I was a lad growing up in the east end of Glasgow, playground facilities were a stank cover we could play marbles on (and only when the jannie wasn’t looking) and a wall you could bounce a ball off. The only school trip I remember was to the Fire brigade museum (which had a stuffed dog and some brass helmets). Indeed they do so many activities at Barcaldine you sometimes wonder when they find the time to do “proper” education but they obviously do as the school has great educational outcomes. I see no reason why any of the other schools in Argyll are really any different.
In North Lorn, the smaller schools cooperate with each other to organise joint school activities. This allows things like meaningful sports days and residential courses to be pursued. The schools are thus mutually supportive ensuring that any disadvantages they have in having small numbers of pupils are overcome – and in a very cost effective manner.
In short, the arguments the Council make regarding the educational benefits of their proposals are not so much weak as non-existent. They have to say something though – let’s just be glad that it is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. …
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
to Dr Douglas McKenzie,
you are right about the blatchford article i had read it and found it easily digested, also if you google the bloomer zoomer his ppt presentations come up which are funny to see in the light of our shoddy proposal situation. The guy loves big schools, maybe he has some issues, his background is also in a large inland area with none of the problems with water etc that argyll has ! if the £1000 figure is correct then i am astounded that this kind of horrendous waste of our money can go on. You have a feeling that these people are from a different planet, just how different is mind boggling though. well done with your comments, there are some people we should thank though, simon and jim for there persistence as each time they post they recieve a large rebuttal of their simplistic unreal views, of which i am sure they have not been out on the streets getting.
the award for signifying nothing has to go to those two, they made it personal by not really listening initially, but there is a change in some of their jibber jabber which is refreshing to know that even broken records can sometimes be nudged out of their repetative groove.
I am just glad we have this website/internet, and obviously smart people around who can tell it like it could be not how it is.
To send the children of luss from a national park to the east end like tarmac playgrounds of the nearest large conurbation to a school with significantly less school trips, poorer pupil teacher ratio, tighter accomodation, in the pitch black on a small bus for more than 45mins dependant on the weather, for no real savings, like some/most of the other proposals. Its absolutely astounding and incredible that these people who are charged with the care of our futures did not see these failings or are they so inefectual that maybe revolution IS the only answer.
Some have obviously seen this or thursday would be looking completely different. We should not accept this “mince” at all.
your pluralistic apology is unnecessary but demonstrates a normal ability for self awareness that sadly our council seems to be totally bereft of. On the surface at least. Wouldn’t it be amazing to see inside their minds, not for too long though I am not that curious as to risk permanent mental damage. Its a funny world they seem to inhabit. They need a shake and i think the barcaldine tyger is spoiling to do it.
Maybe we have been idiots, but they shall feel the fury at some point.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To Dr McKenzie
I got the figure from a Councillor who had to know it.
Besides which I know Mr Bloomer – he wouldnt come to Argyll for a day for anything less – even to pursue his own beliefs
Like or Dislike:
0 
0