In conjunction with the council meeting on 3rd March 2011, at which the latest proposed school closures for Argyll and Bute will be discussed, Education Spokesperson, Councillor Ellen Morton, has issued a Press Release noting the schools and communities figuring in the latest plan.
Those schools that appeared on the discredited and abandoned closure proposals which were the council’s first shot – and which are not listed here, should not feel any trace of gratitude for their exclusion.
The only appropriate emotion alongside the lifting tension, is an enduring anger at the stubborn incompetence that persisted in needlessly putting their children and parents through so much pain.
The papers for the Council meeting on 3rd March 2011 – at which the new closure proposals will be discussed – are now available on the Council website, as is the press release to which the list is attached.
This time around, rather than going straight to statutory public consultation on closure, there will be pre-consultation discussions with communities who will be expected, gratefully, to fall on their swords. IN fact…
Pre-consultation is the new trick
The petition lodged with the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee and recently heard, drew attention to the inequities of council’s being able to correct errors during the consultation process – although some errors would require restarting the consultation process.
For Argyll picked up quickly on the plan originally hatched by Cleland Sneddon, Executive Director for Education at the council, who presented the first, discredited and later abandoned plans to close 26 rural primaries across Argyll.
At the council meeting on 25th November – and recorded in our notes – Sneddon said airily – in response to queries from councillors on known mistakes in the proposals, that they would simply correct them during the consultation process, as the errors were pointed out to them.
For Argyll has twice written about this vulnerability in the legislation and in the process it envisages. It leaves parent councils likely to strengthen the case against their schools by identifying errors in proposals during the consultation phase.
‘Pre-consultation’ is simply a ruse to dupe innocent parent councils into identifying (and correcting) faults in the proposals to close their schools before the proposals are finalised for formal consultation.
The intention is then that the proposals will not contain the sort of errors that would weaken the case for closure and, with correction, delay the consultation process.
Using pre-consultation – and parent ocuncil and community scrutiny of the proposals - makes them much more potent instruments of destruction than the council’s own efforts would have delivered.
We advise parent councils of schools on this new list to take advice from the experienced Scottish Rural Schools Network on just how they should treat the pre-consultation – but we cannot recommend strongly enough that they leave their innocence at the door and ca’ canny.
The new list
The closure and possible new arrangements proposed are:
- St Kierans (already closed) to Castlehill
- Ardchonnel (already closed) to Dalmally / Kilmartin
- North Bute to Rothesay Joint campus
- Toward to Innellan
- Luss to Hermitage Primary School
- Achaleven to Dunbeg OR Achaleven to Lochnell
- Ardchattan to Lochnell
- Minard to Furnace OR Minard to Lochgilphead
- Rhunahaorine to Glenbarr
- Clachan to Tarbert
- Skipness to Tarbert
- Ashfield to Lochgilphead OR Ashfield to Tayvallich
Analysis
The following is an immediate response analysis of the new proposals. It s not all-inclusive and it will be developed.
Luss School
Luss has, disgracefully, been the sacrificial anode for Helensburgh and Lomond. Concillors dared not persist with Rosneath and Kilcreggan, not because of the interests of the children and parents of these schools but in pure self interest. There would have been a sharp, personal, political price for councillors to pay.
And Councillor Robb’s well researched and argued championing of Parklands School, the specialist provision for special needs children and young people – which should never have been listed for closure – had drawn public attention to the madness of this proposal.
So that left Luss as the pawn in the game – and they are still proposing to trek rural lochside tinies for a minimum of an hour and a half commuting a day to the very different urban world of Helensburgh – away from the reason why their parents had raised them in Luss in the first place.
This is a healthy and sustainable school – and it does have options, thanks to a generous offer from Sir Malcolm Colquhoun, owner of the Luss Estates.
The answer for Luss may well be to start discussions with the Luss Estates and to begin now to explore the option of an independent community run solution.
This could lead to Luss taking the initiative and opting out, protecting the community into the future from repeated closure threats, should they manage to avoid it this time – which is unlikely. The horsetrading will want to see each area take pain.
If Luss were in a position to opt out sooner rather than later and take charge of their own provision, it would also release their children from a second round of stress and worry, following immediately after the prolonged first attempt to close down their school.
North Bute School
There is no earthly reason, on evidence – if evidence mattered – why North Bute should close.
The capacity figures advanced for it are wrong and have been shown to be wrong. The reason for the council’s stubborn refusal to accept this is the real agenda for closing North Bute.
The embarrassment is that they have significant over capacity – by any measure – at the Primary School on the new and expensive Rothesay Joint Campus – a Private Finance Initiative clone.
There is a school of thought that has noted the widespread building of new primary schools to obvious over capacity – especially on new joint campuses. The suspicion is that this has been about preparing the ground to close rural primaries – and ship the kids to bigger schools in the towns which obviously have room to receive them.
This amounts to social engineering, frustrating the mature decisions of parents who have chosen a rural lifestyle for their children. It is blind to and runs counter to the nature of Argyll, attempting to make it conform to something it cannot be and failing to build upon its distinctiveness.
Minard School
Minard School has had a first class HMIE report which proved an embarrassment to the council in its first outing on the closure list.
It has a community able and determined to build the sustainability of the school. And since ‘educational benefit’ is, in law, the single criterion on which a school may be closed, how can there be any educational beenefit to Minard pupils in moving them away from a school with an educational record like the one it has?
It is hard to envisage a successful attempt to close this school and to do so would be wilfully blind to the destructive consequences for its community. The suspicion is that this school has been left on the list to allow a spirited campaign for its survival – to be led by its resident councillor, Alison Hay, succeed in time to buttress her chances in the Scottish Election 2011.
Eyes wide open as ever, we note that the other school in Councilor Hay’s constituency, Glassary, is not back on the list. Since it is inconceivable that a pork-barrel outfit like Argyl and Bute Council will close the school in a small village in which a senior member of the ruling coalition lives, this neat arrangement means that (our bet) at the end of this process both of the schools in Councillor Hay’s patch will remain open.
There is no doubt that, if Minard school does close, it will be a bitter business.
Clachan School
The fortunes of Clachan have gone round the clock. Last time around, Clachan was receiving pupils from Skipness, Glenbarr and Rhunahaorine. This time it’s down to close itself, with its own pupils and those from Skipness transferring to Tarbert.
Closing Clachan seems unncessary and leaves a geographical gap in primary education provision on the long territory of West Loch Tarbert.
The journey from Clachan to Tarbert is around 12 miles and, given the currently indefensible state of the A83, will be a long enough and uncomfortable twice-daily bone-rattler for tinies.
We are not aware that Clachan is a member of the Argyll Rural Schools Network or in touch with the experienced Scottish Rural Schools Network which has been such a potent support for the schools wrongly threatened with closure in the council’s failed first effort. We suggest that Clachan parent council gets in touch with both organisations promptly.
Glenbarr and Rhunahaorine
Part of the rearrangement around the new proposal to close Clachan School, is the plan to close Rhunahaorine and transfer its pupils to Glenbarr.
What this proposal sensibly does is to maintain the vital presence of a primary school on this stretch of the west coast of Kintyre. This is to be applauded.
It does come, though, at the cost of closing Clachan.
Ashfield School
Ashfield is back in the firing line, offered the choice of pupil transfer to nearby Tayvallich or to the town of Lochgilphead.
Ashfield has the kitchen in the area that provides school meals to Tayvallich, which has no such facility.
Closing Ashfield would leave costs to be incurred in providing a kitchen at Tayvallich, whether or not Ashfield kids transferred to Tayvallich or Lochgilphead.
GAE funding would be lost in a transfer to Lochgilphead but retained in a transfer to Tayvallich.
Closing Ashfield also seems unnecessary.
Achaleven School
This school has an artificially low roll at the moment because the council has persisted in refusing to provide pre-school facilities in the community.
Parents therefore are starting their children at a school with pre-school facilities so that they can stay in one place as they make the transition to P1.
If Achaleven had pre-school facilities, its primary school would be viable in anyone’s book.
This looks like a case for concerted and proactive community action – which might involve community responsibility for pre-school provision.
http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/news/2011/feb/additional-consultation-proposed-school-estate-review
Heres the list.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Tough day for newsroom as they must have bene working overtime to find a balance between the rumours whilst drafting articles. No surprise and certainly no criticism that this article has been published after the list has been confirmed and made public.
As a Peninsula parent I am obviously delighted at today’s news however also have great sympathy for those schools still under threat. There are many people who have worked hard to support their local schools and today marks a great achievment for many of them. I hope that many of them will not walk away now and will continue to fight for the schools still under threat.
The Council have made it clear that the school estate is now under perpetual review and a school saved today may well be threatened again in future. When that school’s time comes round again I am sure the people in its commuity will be looking for as much support as they can get. Let those of us who are safe for now ensure we give what we would expect to receive in future.
If we return to a silo mentality then the Council will simply achieve over 5 years what it wanted to achieve over one year.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Echoing Integrity, great news for Islay and for all the communities saved this time, our thought are with those still to fight. Good luck all, and let’s never forget the architects of this fiasco.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
http://www.dunoon-observer.com/index.php/news/latest-news/1937-12-schools-on-new-closure-list
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is just this year’s list. School closures will now become an annual event. No reasons given for the hit list. One theory is these are the schools where Councillor Morton didn’t get chocolate biscuits (as arbitrary as any). Dither and fudge as usual. Argyll & Bute Council formerly a laughing stock is now attracting sympathy after this amateur hour. If your school escaped this time don’t worry Councillor Morton will be back after the election. Pre-consultation is designed to get you to find the flaws that would get a closure decision overturned by the Government. You have been warned.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Integrity: After we had published the first article, we got the publication of the new list and decided to take our time and do an initial analysis of the contents of the new list. We knew the basic facts would travel the hotwire pretty quickly and it seemed more valuable to add some perspective.
So when this article was finished, we binned the earlier one – on Rosneath and Kilcreggan not being on the list – and replaced it with this one. (And we’re saying this because by dropping the redundant article, we’ve left readers unable now to see what you’re talking about.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A couple of points about Ashfield – it too is in Alison Hay’s Ward – and “nearby Tayvallich” is 19.8miles on single track road for our furthest pupil – and Lochgilphead is roughly 21miles!
It is also by far the best school building and facilities in the area.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
fir Ashfield Mum: We have never been able to see any reason to close Ashfield.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks newsroom lets hope we can persuade the powers that be now too!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Also the loss of Pre-5 was the first nail in the coffin…………………..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Councillors appear to be playing games with the communities of West Kintyre , first it was Glenbarr now it’s Rhunahaorine and Clachan . Clearly the fact that Councillors representing this area live in Islay and Tarbert and not the areas affected is significant .
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
kintyre1
dont think for 1 minute that having a councillor living on islay took keills off the list and left others on it, there was more to it than that, although i must admit that not having a councillor in your area makes it harder for them to appriciate the impact it will have on the community
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Having a ‘dedicated’ on site LOCAL councillor would have ensured that no stone was left unturned in the pursuit of 100% exclusive representation for your village or town area.
We simply must return to that tried and tested system, where you (councillor) can be found wanting very quickly should you not fight for your electorate.
The old system in Lorn worked very well, with the old wards, Ardconnel/Kilmore, North Lorn, Awe, Oban north, Oban South, Oban central, Mull, tiree etc etc. Councillors were identifiable with their ward, and some are still doing a grand job under the new arrangement, but can not be held to task so easilly.
It is very obvious in the schools issue that closures can be weighted against schools with no councillor living nearby.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Does anyone know how many of the schools in Mike Russell’s “alternative closure plan” are on this list?
I agree with James, closures will become an annual event, especially once the precedent has been set. So anyone who thinks they have got away with it this time needs to support those schools still on the list because it might be you next!
My children go to Tarbert Academy. There was a proposal to close the secondary department there floating around last year. The immediate threat was seen off but I can’t help thinking that it was just a temporary reprieve.
When you add school closures to all the other disadvantages that Argyll suffers from – deterioratng transport infrastructure, inadequate telecoms infrastructure, high house prices and lack of social housing provision, expensive and poorly stocked shops, economic uncertainty generally and specifically in regard to significant local employers such as Skykon and The Forestry Commission, etc – the prospects for the future for families with children in Argyll looks increasingly bleak. People with children are already forced to move away to find emloyment and housing. If we are not carefull, in 10 years time the only people living here will be retired and the rest of the houses will be 2nd homes for central belt solicitors and bankers (as plenty already are)!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The question has to be asked if these latest proposals are based on professional assessments by Council officers or on assessments by Councillor Morton as it would be most unusual for a councillor to bring forward such proposals? If they are from Council officers, why have they now removed schools that they were proposing for closure only just over seven weeks ago? If they are from Councillor Morton, what criteria has she used to place them on the list and does she have the full support of officers for her assessments?
We should not forget that 19 councillors were blindly supporting the proposals to close 25 schools until just seven weeks ago when they were forced into a massive U turn by the opposition councillors who called a Special Council meeting to reverse the decision that was taken on 25 November.
Some of these 19 councillors will continue to argue that they would not vote for closure of some of the 25 schools but if that is the case, why did they vote to progress with the closure proposals on 25 November? Why vote for closure proposals if you do not believe that the case for closure has been made? Their arguments do NOT make sense. Among the 19 were Cllr Morton (Education Spokesperson), Cllr Vivien Dance (Deputy Education Spokesperson), the 5 Lib Dem colleagues of Cllr Morton, 2 Tories and 10 Alliance of Independent councillors.
It will be interesting to know if Alan Reid, Lib Dem MP, will support the closure proposals being brought forward by Cllr Morton, his Lib Dem colleague? Will Alison Hay, Lid Dem Cllr and Lib Dem candidate for the Scottish Parliament elections in May continue to support the proposals to close Minard Primary School or will that one be removed from the list on 12 April, less than one month before the Scottish Parliament elections? Will all 8 ConDemAll administration councillors in the Helensburgh & Lomond Area support the proposed closure of Luss Primary School?
It will be interesting to see if ConDemAll administration councillors continue to blindly support the proposals on this econd list or will they actually think for themselves this time? Watch this space.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cllr Freeman’s point about the criteria for inclusion, or otherwise, is an important one for schools on and off the list (clearly of more short term concern for those on).
Knowing why your school was selected will help inform the strategy and areas of focus during all stages of the process between now and the final vote.
For schools off the list it will help inform what communities, and the school itself, can focus on improvements/developments to try and minimise the risk of inclusion on inevitable future lists.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pingback: Tweets that mention Argyll News: New school closure list for Argyll and Bute :Argyll,Argyll Bute Council,school closures,new list, | For Argyll -- Topsy.com
Big concern is that the “informal” consultations of last May are still being used as evidence for suggesting closure – these were not open public meetings – although it appears as if we are being offered that now that is not the case – otherwise all of Argyll’s communities would have an input on how to save money in the Education Budget. There are solutions other than blanket closures – which 10 or 12 schools anywhere else in Scotland would be seen as.
Also notice that emphasis is now on closure rather than amalgamation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Exactly what is the criteria for inclusion?
Is it size of the roll?
Well no. although many of the schools are small, the list includes North Bute at over 50 pupils and Luss has a larger roll than several of the schools which have been reprieved.
Is it to maximise the Revenue savings?
Well no, it will actually cost A&BC £50,000 to close North Bute, Most of the big ticket items have been removed from the list. The peninsula schools were originally listed as saving £290,000 and Parklands as £255,000 – a total of £545,000. Properly costed, the total savings from all of these new proposals put together will not reach that figure (remembering St Kieran’s is already closed). The savings that can be made at Luss are a tiny fraction of that that can be saved at schools which have been removed from the previous list.
Is it to improve the educational experience of the children?
Well no, schools like Minard have some of the best educational records in the country. The most recent HMIe report on Luss could find absolutely nothing wrong with the education provided. In the case of Ashfield the move to Tayvallich would mean moving from a school with a hall/room for PE/Art/Dining and also a kitchen. Tayvallich has no dedicated space for these purposes – can this be described as a real advance in educational experience?
Is it because these schools are the ones with drastically falling rolls?
Well no, North Bute has just had the highest registration for P1 for the last 5 years with 11 children – 5 more than A&BC predicted in their roll forecast. The Tayvallich/Ashfield proposal would result in a school of around 40 pupils with very low floor space per child. Returns to the Scottish Government show that only a couple of years ago this merger would only have yielded a school of 23 pupils.
Is it because the schools are geographically accessible to one another?
Well no, some of the combined catchments will lead to the most outlying children having journeys of near 20 miles to the receiving schools – most of it on single track roads.
We were told originally that the closures had to be carried out to realise the necessary savings of £2.1 million. We were then told that the original proposals were dropped because of the larger than expected cut in the block grant – surely this would have meant the need for even greater savings? Instead we are now looking at picking off schools – several of them for very marginal savings. This looks increasingly like nothing more than dogma.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nice analysis from Sandy, and to clarify, that 50k cost to the council from closing North Bute is additional revenue cost – i.e. PER YEAR. More than enough to fund the capital cost of a fairly substantial refurbishment I would have thought – the condition of this school having been given as one of the main reasons for proposing its closure.
Meanwhile our school is off the new list but there are still twelve on there – way more than the 8 or 9 which I thought I was being pessimistic in expecting. Furthermore there is a commitment that the review will be ongoing. This is no more than a new twist on the divide and rule principle, with the divisions being created across time instead of across community boundaries as attempted in 2000.
Argyll & Bute Council has not conceded a single point in public about the depth of the flaws in the old process, nor admitted that the huge weight of evidence and feeling brought to bear against it by communities the length and breadth of Argyll had anything to do with its abandonment on 5th January. There is not one iota of evidence in the new council paper that they have listened to the public and changed their approach to one of supporting small schools wherever possible.
The bottom line is that this council is still actively pursuing a policy amounting to a presumption in favour of closing rural schools. This is out of step with (in fact precisely opposite to) government policy, and is clearly out of step with public opinion. Until we convince the political membership of the council – before, during and after the next council elections – that closing small but healthy community schools is not an acceptable way to save relatively trivial sums of money, there is no such thing as a safe school in Argyll.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Of course that should have read “a majority of the political membership of the council”, with apologies to the many elected members who have already declared that view.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Regarding the proposed closure of Rhunahaorine and Clachan schools. There is a third councillor representing this area, Councillor McAlpine who I understand lives in Carradale.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Sandy
How about a ‘fairness’ criteria?
School £/pupil
Toward £7,630
Achaleven £16,213
Ardchattan £22,202
Clachan £10,620
Rhunahaorine £9,741
Ashfield £15,206
Minard £9,963
Luss £8,241
Why do kids these deserve this amount of money thrown at them when say the likes of Barcaldine can deliver a very high standard of education in a small school for £4,947/pupil? Surely there is an inequality that needs addressed here?
Taking Archattan and Achaleven as examples. Journey times will be in the region of 20 minutes, there are lots of primary kids making this length of journey already. Those in the Bonawe area could feasibly go to either Lochnell or Barcaldine (if there were spaces). What is the justification for pumping money into keeping this open when there are good alternatives available? Even if new families do settle in the area there are schools within the distance that many kids already routinely travel.
Achaleven has 5 primaries well within 20 minutes and at the moment we are spending £16k/yr on these kids…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jim – you have partly answered your own question by pointing out that Barcaldine demonstrates that a good education can be had in a small school without entailing excessive costs. What about the council adopting an approach where they investigate these examples of obvious best practice and then apply the lessons across the school estate. That would gain the active support of the communities involved, instead of the intense confrontation resulting from closure proposals. Some schools would still end up significantly more expensive per pupil than others, but only in cases where the numbers of pupils are very small and hence so are any overall savings.
Also, bear in mind that some of the figures you quote were questioned and contained obvious errors. The one that springs to mind is Ashfield, where the entire cost of providing meals to the kids in Tayvallich was apparently lumped onto Ashfields’s cost (they have the kitchen), while Tayvallich was allocated the income from them! Then there’s the fact that these numbers need £2,600 deducted as the GAE income the council receives as a result of having pupils attend small schools.
As for ‘fairness’ having been used as a criterion in the crude terms you imply, it doesn’t look like it. Glenbarr, Ulva, Lochdonhead, Achahoish all had quoted per-pupil costs of £8k to £13k, well within the range you have listed, and all are off.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have resisted in commenting here as not to further endanger Luss Primary since we are obviously a “target”.
However a couple of points need answered.
Jim – I don’t know about those other schools but the Luss one is wrong. That amount does not include the Grant received by the council because our school is under 70 pupils, so please knock another £2,600 off that per pupil.
This cost is also very misleading when you then work out the running costs of having a school there versus loss of GAE, additional transport and in the case of Luss – the extra class that will have to be formed at Hermitage Primary to accommodate the extra pupils. It actually puts you into a negative balance – EACH YEAR. Costs per pupil is something being thrown about as to try and mislead the public as to what ACTUAL savings can be made.
And as Sandy has pointed out, the savings that the council think they can make from Luss – which does not include the formation of the extra class at Hermitage – are so miniscule and a lot less than schools that have been removed from the last list.
I will not pass personal comment on what I feel regarding our inclusion in this latest round, however I will tell you the number one question I have been asked in the village this morning – Would we still be on the list if we had a Councillor living here?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
for jim
I would be very interested in finding out how you got your figures.
The council website doesn’t seem to have the ? latest primary school data sheets.If you could point me in the right direction I’d be grateful.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Morag: There is an obvious conclusion to be drawn from the issue of where ‘Jim’ got his figures.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Jim: So the inclusion of Barcaldine first time around was because… ? Surely not – whisper it – ‘a mistake‘?
You miss the issue – which the governing legislation specifically attends to – that the impact on the host rural community of the proposed closure of its school is a matter of core importance.
If the same rule of indiscriminate thumb you advocate were to be applied to Scotland, the entire Highlands and Islands, including Argyll and excluding the major urban east coast centres, would neither be viable nor competitive.
If you understand the macro argument you must be able to understand its translation to the microcosmic circumstances of small individual rural communities, some of which you may relate to, even feel responsible for?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Sandy Longmuir – you mention Tayvallich Primary twice in your comment above, in both cases in a way which could be read to imply that it might be more appropriate to close Tayvallich and transport the children to Ashfield, rather than the other way round.
It is disappointing that someone who supposedly champions all rural schools could be seen as setting one up against the other. However, just looking at the facts …….
In one paragraph, you claim that schools like Minard have ‘some of the best educational records in the country’. Indeed they do. Another of Argyll and Bute’s schools with an outstanding HMIe report is Tayvallich (http://www.hmie.gov.uk/documents/inspection/TayvallichPS8109524.html). Yet you are then prepared to state that ‘in the case of Ashfield the move to Tayvallich would mean moving from a school with a hall/room for PE/Art/Dining and also a kitchen. Tayvallich has no dedicated space for these purposes..’. Are you seriously saying that gaining a kitchen and a room for PE/Art/dining is in itself ‘an advance in educational experience’? Or that the educational experience of any children transferring from Ashfield to Tayvallich, should that eventually happen, would necessarily be diminished because of the lack of such facilities? I thought a good education was more about teaching than general purpose rooms or kitchens. I don’t think anyone who reads Tayvallich’s HMIe report will be left with the impression that their education is in any way suffering because there is no kitchen or PE/Art room.
Incidentally, for those people who are unfamiliar with our facilities, Tayvallich Primary has the use of the village hall and its adjacent purpose-built, all weather sports court for PE.
Secondly, you state that ‘the Tayvallich/Ashfield proposal would result in a school of around 40 pupils with very low floor space per child’. By my reckoning, it would be the low to mid 30s, which might not seem a big difference but as a percentage is significant. And that’s assuming that all the parents of the Ashfield pupils (some of whom are there on a placing request) would prefer their children to go to Tayvallich rather than Lochgilphead – which seems to be an option in the new proposals – or any other school.
It might well be that your statements were merely intended to support the case for removing Ashfield from the list, rather than commenting on the quality of provision at Tayvallich. But these days I don’t think you should be surprised if people are sensitive to you comparing schools with one other.
This is obviously a very difficult time for all schools, in particular those on the list. I have every sympathy with the parents at Ashfield and every other school on that list, and will support them where I can. But it is not helpful when someone who many people regard as something of an expert on Argyll and Bute’s rural schools makes such ambiguous statements.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Tayvallich: we have seen young pupils from Tayvallich on their all-weather sports surface beside the school and above Loch Sween, having very well organised football coaching from Argyll and Bute Council’s star appointment from Ross County.
This is clearly a healthy school in every respect and, like Ashfield, should never be a candidate for closure. Tayvallich will feel for Ashfield in understanding just how crucial a primary school is to the vitality and the sustainability of a remote rural community.
Don’t take this personally or communally because it is a general observation – but one of the phenonena we found most disappointing about the overall picture during the council’s recent failed excursion on school closures, was the absolute silence from the schools designated to receive the pupils from those listed to be closed.
There was something cravenly carrion about this which, frankly, we did not respect – and that is not to single Tayvallich out for criticism, although your voice was not heard.
However, our own stance on this is conviction in the irreplaceable value of the relationship between Argyll’s remote rural communities and their primary schools. Each sustains the other.
if Tayvallich finds itself threatened with closure at any point in this ‘rolling review’ (or unlimited turkey shoot), you can count on our unequivocal support.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
for newsroom
Damn! here was me thinking he was legit he he he!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There is no need to remove GAE from any of the figures. GAE is not magic money, it is taxpayers money. My point stands; there is an inherent inequality in a situation where one pupil has 3 or 4 times the amount spent on them verses a kid attending a school 10 miles down the road. Especially where suitable alternatives exist.
Tim: I suspect what is seen in Barcaldine is an example of an optimum teacher pupil ratio, a few more kids either way would tip the balance.
morag: The figures are from the initial set of proposals, they could also be calculated from the devolved budgets that FA published here a while ago.
newsroom: I have long since argued that there was no case for the closure of Barcaldine, please check my previous comments on this. It was a mistake. Perhaps one borne out of an effort to address a perceived under occupancy at Lochnell. Who knows.
My issue is fairness. To address your points about the impact on communities; Connel is a busy commuter village with 5 schools within 20 minutes. There will be no detrimental impact on the village. Bonawe clearly can’t attract young families, probably as much about commuting distances for parents than anything. Families settling on that side of Loch Etive will have 2 schools within 20 minutes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
GAE is valid to apply in this case as the figure quoted is the section of the council’s grant awarded on the rural pupils in schools of under 70 and the taxpayer as you put it will lose that money with removal of these schools.
You want Argyll and Bute Council to have even less money to work with? No, so its valid.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is not valid to apply it when comparing what it costs to educate children at different schools. This is what I am doing.
The taxpayer doesn’t loose any money, it doesn’t disappear if its not awarded as GAE. It goes back into the pot which pays for all our public services.
I want taxpayer money spent effectively. £15k/yr for one student where they can get the same education for £5k/yr 20 mins down the road is madness.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Will the council receive a smaller “pot” if they close these schools – YES. Therefore its valid.
It will reduce the “pot” available for all other schools and services.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Re GAE: The point, as Fiona Phillips and Tim McIntyre are saying, is that it is the presence of each child in a school roll below 70 that attracts annual funding of £2,600 per child to Argyll and Bute.
Under the concordat struck in 2007, local authorities do not have to spend this money on their education provision – which we think is what passes for Jim’s argument. Council’s have flexibility in their application of funding, except, now, from the newly ring fenced Supporting People grants. In this reintroduction of defunct grants, COSLA’s intervention, with Argyll and Bute Council’s agreement, saw Argyll take an additional cut of £5.6 million this year and into the future.
There is no GAE ‘pot’ but there is an Argyll and Bute Council ‘pot’ to which the per capita grant from rural school rolls below 70 contributes significantly.
In any normal disaggregated accounting, as Fiona Phillips is evidencing, the total cost per child would of course take account of income generated by that child.
The loss of the GAE funding currently brought in by the Luss roll – if its pupils were to be transferred to a school whose roll already disqualifies it from this grant – is an overall annual loss to Argyll and Bute’s annual revenue grant.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think the point is that GAE ‘rejected’ by the closure of a small school goes back to the Scottish Government and is lost to Argyll. We may arguably see a minuscule proportion of it back if it is shared out among the councils, but it is a clear loss to the Argyll economy and anyone speaking from an Argyll perspective would be barmy to suggest that money is better off in the SG’s bank account than Argyll & Bute Council’s.
Therefore in the comparison between the relative costs of educating children in different sized schools within Argyll, it is absolutely relevant.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am afraid it is still not valid or relevant. The Council’s “pot” is totally IRRELEVANT in my argument. I am comparing the cost of education between schools which are 20 minutes apart.
What you appear to be advocating is that as taxpayers we accept a situation where we spend an extra £10k/yr or more per child to give them an education which they can get 10 miles down the road for much cheaper.
So that is an argument AGAINST public sector efficiency. It is totally bonkers.
How about you pay the extra £10k/yr? I am not willing to contribute to this, it’s a complete waste of resources.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Jim: So what you say in your comment at 4.03 pm can be taken to mean that you do not support the plan to close Luss school and to send its healthy roll of pupils to Hermitage Primary School in Helensburgh – which will be at least a full 45 minute journey away, twice a day?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There is a simple solution. Put every part of Argyll & Bute on fortnightly household waste bin collections and not just Islay, Jura, Mull, Helensburgh and Colonsay (winter time due to ferry sailings). The money saved would more than cover the cost of keeping these schools open.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
newsroom: I am not particularly familiar with Luss but from the information provided in the Council’s proposal documents I do find it’s inclusion in this round questionable.
Travel times which approach 45 minutes are in my personal opinion reaching an unacceptable amount for a young child. Given that it’s cost per pupil is not in the same region as most of the others in the list again raises questions.
I would like to know however why it costs £3k/yr more to educate kids at Luss than at the comparably sized Barcaldine. I will perhaps take a look at the devolved budgets again when I have a moment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
newsroom: I am fully aware of what GAE means for ABC and rural schools. The points that Tim and Fiona are making are a complete distraction from the point I am making, which is there are inefficiencies and inequalities in primary education spend which need addressed. Much in the way are inefficiencies in many aspects of the public sector.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Treblet: A change to the waste collection in ABC has already been approved by the Council. Starting in the spring there will be a waste uplift one week and recyclables uplift the alternate weeks. A good solution in my mind, reduces costs, increases recycling and keeps jobs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For newsroom – ‘absolute silence’ and ‘cravenly carrion’?? No – and I’m frankly appalled by your description, as I’m sure many other parents will be.
Firstly, there were several avenues through which residents of Argyll and Bute could make representations to the council about the original closure list. For Argyll was not one of them. So please do not presume that your site is an accurate barometer of what people have or have not done or said. There are all sorts of reasons why people may not want to stick their heads above the parapet by commenting on your site or, indeed, by voicing their support for a school earmarked for ‘amalgamation’ in any public arena.
Secondly, using the phrase ‘cravenly carrion’ (and I can hardly rewrite it, it’s so repulsive) implies that anyone connected with a receiving school who has not voiced their support for threatened schools on For Argyll is taking some sort of satisfaction, or even pleasure, from the situation. This is not just ridiculous but extremely insulting. Has it occurred to you that one (very good) reason some people in receiving schools might not have been comfortable in sticking their heads above the parapet is because they were (and perhaps still are) terrified the guns might then be trained on them instead?
If you have to refer to anyone as a carrion eater in this whole scenario, perhaps you should restrict it to the council. It is not just vile but also highly irresponsible of you to suggest that parents who may well be simply too frightened to speak up for another school in case theirs then becomes a target are feeding off the misery of other schools. It’s like criticising a child for not sticking up for another child who is being bullied, because they’re scared of being bullied themselves. Call it cowardice if you wish. As far as I’m concerned, when the education of your own children and the sustainability of your own community are potentially at stake, there are understandable and often acceptable reasons why people might not want to raise their voices in public in support of a school earmarked for closure, whatever they may do or say in private.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Tayvallich, The very last thing I was suggesting was that Tayvallich should close and move to Ashfield or anywhere else. I have read your HMIe report (along with every other in Argyll) and it is indeed excellent. This is in common with so many of the schools we work with and I note that yet again the links with the community are singled out for special mention. I am the last person to advocate breaking those vital links – I think you have to look elsewhere for people who threaten that.
My figures on the projected roll come from a document I received from A&BC under FOI. It is entitled “Projected Primary School Rolls” and puts Tayvallich’s roll for next year at 29 and Ashfield’s at 10. I understand from Ashfield parents that their figure may be a little light. Of course the document I have comes from the Education Department at A&BC so its accuracy cannot be relied upon.
My point on space is that at the time of the HMIe inspection your children had an average of 7.8sqm per pupil – without seeing your school this would appear more than adequate. If, as proposed, Ashfield is closed and the roll jumps to 39 or 40 the available space drops to under 5sqm per pupil. The Scottish Futures Trust recommend 8.5sqm per pupil. Of course the free use of a village hall helps greatly and is a symbiotic relationship. The existence of the hall depends on the school and vice versa.
Your point about resource rooms and facilities being far less important than teaching quality and the individual attention of good teachers is, of course, 100% correct. Perhaps you could draw this to the attention of A&BC who continually use the resources argument when trying to close schools such as North Bute, Luss or Minard.
Your reaction to my comment does show just how successful A&BC have been at setting school against school and community against community.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jim. Thanks for this information. Is it going to be implemented across the the rest of Argyll & Bute at the same time or is it going to be rolled out slowly with Lochgilphead being the last part of Argyll & Bute to go on to fortnightly bin collections. As council tax payers in Islay & Jura have had fortnightly bin collections since August 2006 they should be due a refund in their council tax as a result of receiving an inferior bin collection service for the past four and a half years.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Note to Treblet and Jim: This is already in place for Luss and has been for certainly the last 2 years.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jim: your arguments are based on classic central belt logic and takes no account of the inequalities of rural life. Inequality is structural. There aren’t enough people in rural Scotland to make a point stick with politicians so they accept longer distances, higher prices, fewer services. Have a think about it.
If we started charging folk in the central belt higher prices for the things they don’t live near, e.g. milk, fish, beef, lamb, eggs, electricity or gas, they’d claim it wasn’t fair. Yet we’re expected to put up with the daft notion that we’re “too far” to get our goods at the same price as the central belt. Similary, Council Tax in Glasgow will give you access to a great deal including schools within walking distance, all pervasive street-lighting, twice a week refuse collections from your door and a prize collection of museums. Council Tax in Argyll and Bute may get you as little as a crumbling road and a once a week bin lorry at the end of the track. Where’s the equality in that?
If your argument is going to stick, it needs to stick across the board. The “It’s not fair” mantra can be used to justify many things, including a revolt among the peasants!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Clachan Parent council is aware of both the ARSN and SRSN and have been monitoring both this page and the facebook page for information relevant to us.
I realise that there is a meeting tonight but the distance is too far for anyone at short notice but feel free to pass on any information to us
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Lee: We’re sure that Clachan parent council – and the Clachan community – will find stout support and sane advice from ARSN and SRSN. And For Argyll will continue to provide as much information and analysis as possible.
We have a serious problem with the logic of the diametrically opposed proposals for Clachan.
In the set of closure proposals, now withdrawn, the Council must have felt that Clachan was a school which was capable of offering real educational benefit to the pupils is was designated to receive from Glenbarr, Rhunahaorine and Skipness.
Why therefore, has it now arbitrarily decided to close Clachan?
And if Skipness pupils are, in this second shy, to transfer to Tarbert rather than to Clachan, it suggests that Tarbert must be able to offer a superior educational benefit to that available from Clachan. This perspective is heightened by the fact that Clachan pupils themselves are now proposed to transfer to Tarbert.
Why, therefore, was Skipness not transferred to Tarbert in the first instance?
All of this looks to us – along with many similar types of conundrum in this latest list – as if Argyll and Bute has learned no lessons whatsoever from the catastrophe of its last attempt at closure proposals.
This latest list seems still to be driven by ad hoc and a multiplicity of motives rather than by any single lucid philosophy – more ‘What can we get away with?’ than ‘What criteria will we use to help us decide which, if any, schools should close – and which should receive their pupils?’
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Anne: my argument does not compare rural and central belt at all. It compares rural with rural. Why does it cost under £5000/yr to educate kids at Barcaldine (a rural school) but £22,000/yr at Ardchattan which are 6.4 miles apart (according to Google Maps).
Is that a responsible and efficient use of Council resources? I really don’t think it is. And it has nothing to do the the cost of a pint of milk.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Fiona Phillips – you ask the question “Would we still be on the list if we had a Councillor living here?”
Minard has a Councillor (Alison Hay) who lives directly across the road from it – yet it is still on the list.
There is speculation that Minard has been left on the list so Alison Hay can reprieve it (presumably, dramatically, at the last moment and be the hero of the day and win the respect, and more importantly the votes, of the local people in the next election)
If Alison Hay wants to be a hero and “save” Minard she should do something about it now (or should have done something about it before now – but too late for that now) and save the children, parents, teachers and community members of Minard the stress and anxiety. The electorate are not daft, contrary to what some Councillors seem to believe!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Purple Heather: that question was not mine, but the one that people were asking me in the village this morning and it really refers to the situation with the Helensburgh and Lomond Schools.
All politics aside, I for one was stunned to see Minard’s name back on there as I can see no way of achieving a winning argument for Educational Benefit when Minard is already acknowledged by the council as providing the best.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Fiona asks if Luss would still be on the list if a Councillor lived in the village. I would suggest that Fiona should reword that to read: “Would Luss still be on the list if one of the ConDemAll administration councillors lived in the village”. I think that Fiona may agree with me that if I lived in Luss at the moment, some councillors in the ConDemAll administration would see that as a good reason for having Luss on the list.
I know that Councillor Alison Hay lives just across the road from Minard Primary School which has been included on the list. Your readers may have noted from my comments above that I agree with Purple Heather when I asked if Alison Hay, the Lib Dem candidate for the Scottish Parliament elections in May, still supported the proposals to close Minard Primary School, or will that one be removed from the list on 12 April, less than one month before the Scottish Parliament elections? No doubt Cllr Hay and the Lib Dems would claim the credit. Watch this space?
It should also be remembered that Councillor Alison Hay had the opportunity to “save” Minard Primary School by voting against the closure proposals on 25 November 2010 but we all know that, along with her Lib Dem colleagues, she voted to proceed with the closure proposals for Minard and 24 other schools across Argyll & Bute.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Fiona Phillips. Thank you for your information about Luss having fortnightly bin collections for the last two years. You will notice that the parts of Argyll & Bute that are currently on fornightly bin collections namely Islay, Jura, Mull, Helensburgh, Luss and Colonsay (in Winter due to ferry sailings) are all on the edges of the boundaries of Argyll & Bute Council area. As far as Kilmory is concerned these places are a case of “out ot site out of mind”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Correction. The last statement should read “out of sight out of mind”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Okay then “Jim”, if you can’t handle the larger argument about distribution of resources and costs how about a simple question. Why should someone in Helensburgh get more for their Council Tax than someone paying the same in Ardchattan?
Or: Given the cost of school consultations, is employing people who repeatedly can’t produce a competent document, with accurate information, that complies with relevant law, a responsible and efficient use of Council resources?
Or: Is it a responsible and efficient use of Council resources to fund two departments that work entirely at odds with one another?
Or: Is it a responsible and efficient use of Council resources to “undevelop” Argyll & Bute as a response to mixing up the terms projection and prediction? (Pertinent to the proposal to remove infrastructure on an ongoing basis based upon GRO projections for what will happen if the same vague, lax, uninspired management continues to run the region down.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Tayvallich Parent – Just to reassure you that Ashfield have never suggested or believed that Tayvallich should close and come to Ashfield. Both communities deserve and need their schools.
The saddest part of this chaos is the divisions created in the wider community by the handling of the Education Review by the Council. Ashfield has suffered from the threat of closure for many years now – but its roll is rising and not only through placing requests.
The rolls of small schools across Scotland go through peaks and troughs – many external factors contribute to this – including placing requests, housing and employment opportunities. It is the job of the council to help these communities remain sustainable.
The reason why I’m sure Sandy mentioned the building and facilities is that so much has also been made by the council about the condition of the Schools Estate and Ashfield is one of the best buildings which is far closer to being fit for education in the 21st century than many others across Argyll – please do not take this as a comparison with Tayvallich – it is honestly a statement that is about our fantastic wee school and why it has a right to exist and continue to provide a wonderful warm welcoming atmosphere and education in the most fantastic location and with great facilities – please do not deny us the opportunity to suggest that for our children and our community the loss of these facilities would be detrimental to our future sustainability.
Your HMIE report is indeed superb and you should be very proud of it – unfortunately as we see by Minard’s inclusion on the list this may not be enough to keep you safe – but lets hope so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lee
Clachan was discussed tonight and be assured that you have the full backing of ARSN. We will be in contact very shortly and if there is anythng whatsoever that you want to ask about what we have learned over the past months then you only need to ask.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Ashfield Mum – as I said before, I (and I’m sure every other Tayvallich parent) am right behind you in your fight to keep your school open. It is unfortunate, then, that you use a phrase like “please do not deny us the opportunity to suggest that for our children and our community the loss of these facilities would be detrimental to our future sustainability”. Who is denying you this opportunity? Or who wants to deny you this opportunity? Not me, certainly. That’s the sort of statement which risks encouraging readers to think that people like me do not totally support what people like you are doing, which is rubbish. I know it’s a stressful time, but using language like that is not particularly helpful.
For the record, I agree that your school has great facilities. I never suggested otherwise. All I was doing in my original comment was questioning Sandy Longmuir comparing them with Tayvallich’s.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Tayvallich – Thanks for your support and please remember it us not you going through an emotional roller coaster at the moment and with that in mind make sure your own language and contact is helpful.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We can’t be driven apart on this issue. This is what the council wants. I personally am happier seeing my kids school on this list and not Parklands for the Helensburgh and Lomond schools. We need to all stand together, supporting each other through this, which is only the first round and I can vouch that regardless of what happens, the Luss parents will be behind anyone unfortunate enough to come in the following rounds.
The amount of money the council will save from closing these small to medium but essential to their community schools is absolutely minimal, even when you add all 10 schools together. There are those who are throwing about cost per pupil figures to try and create sympathy for the council. These are a red herring ladies and gentlemen, they are not inclusive of GAE which is money the council will lose by closing these schools. What is accurate is comparing running costs against amalgamation costs. Thats where the true figures can be found – nowhere else. So don’t be fooled.
I can certainly see your point Treblet, if you are not in mid-Argyll, you don’t seem to exist. Although the 750,000 visitors we have a year seem to find Luss with no problems.
Cllr Freeman, I have visions of you being tied to a stake and set on fire at Kilmory with certain individuals shouting “See if he burns”, following by a dunking in Loch Fyne to see if you sink. Unfortunately, this seems to be the treatment you get for actually doing your job right and I doubt they are finished trying to persecute you for showing them up so expertly.
Finally, the question of “Would we still be on the list if we had a councillor in the village?”
Is not my question.
It is fairly obvious to all concerned that we are part of a political agenda, but I personally feel that having a councillor living in Luss would have made no difference. We were never removed from the list. However – this is the question that I have been asked the most by villagers and supporters since the announcement of Pre-Consultation (whatever it is) last Thursday.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Fiona Phillips: Great image you conjure of Councillor Freeman’s treatment.
And the generosity and positivism of your attitude towards the other schools in the Helensburgh and Lomond area (and elsewhere) cannot pass without remark – because it is exemplary and inspiring.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thank-you Integrity for thinking of us at your meeting, we will be holding a community meeting next week so will have a better picture of the views and feelings of our village.
Please join our facebook page “Save Clachan Primary School” and sign our epetition “clachan258.epetition.
We look forward to working with you
lee
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yet again Toward on the list, and it appears that Ms Morton visited the school last week but no parents invited to meet with her to give her a real parents eye view, or perhaps our views arent valid, our reasons for putting our children in to particular schools arent valid?
I really dont hold out much hope that Mr Russell is going to offer us much support now that his wife has moved to a safe school
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Disappointed Mama: Quite how the Education Spokesperson can learn enough about a school without meeting parents is hard to accept. We know that on visits to other schools – like Barcaldine – she certainly did meet members of the parent council because we understand that she blew a very public and uncontrolled fuse when one parent had the temerity – on evidence (as if that counted for much) – to say that the closure programme was about money.
Your tone sounds a little despairing.
Do not accept defeat. This is an incompetent and dishonest council team and a profoundly dishonest administration. Get as much help and advice as you can from the Scottish Rural Schools Network and from the Argyll Rural Schools Network. Fight your case hard and keep us in touch with what you are doing.
Be VERY careful about what you do during the new and highly improper Pre-Consultation phase. This is NOT for your benefit but for theirs. It is designed to lure you into correcting errors in their proposals and adding information to help them to concoct the legally required community impact assessment on your case – before they finalise their papers for formal public consultation.
Their first set of proposals lacked this element altogether because they had neither the knowledge not the interest to prepare such statements. Those proposals would have had to be called in by the Scottish Government because they were not compliant with the law in this respect.
Any threatened school would be very ill advised to give any council representatives any information of these kinds during pre consultation. Take advice specifically from the highly experienced Scottish Rural Schools Network on this: http://arg.srsn.org.uk/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Disappointed Mama
If you are unsure of Mike Russell’s support then I suggest you get in contact with him directly.
From my, admittedly limited, knowledge of him including a recent meeting and other discussions I think you will find he is very supportive – if you have not seen his recent media release hopefully this will provide you with some assurance.
However do contact him for these things are better coming from the horse’s mouth (so to speak).
Good luck
Like or Dislike:
0 
0