(Updated support article below) As For Argyll has reported, in the widespread interest here in how school closures are being managed across Scotland, Angus Council has just completed a closure consultation on Muirfield and Timmergreens schools in Arbroath.
This is proposed to see the pupils of both schools transferring to a new primary school, with no fewer than 500 tinies, built beside the dangerously busy single carriageway Arbroath bypass, the Westway, pictured above.
This consultation ended with a closure vote taken by the full Council despite FOI revelations showing that opposition councillors, parents, community members and HMIE had been kept in the dark, with information withheld from them on financing, repair costs (should the existing schools be refurbished as an alternative to closure), teacher losses and serious road safety concerns.
The decision was taken despite it having become public knowledge that two surveys of relevant sections of the Arbroath population had, as we have earlier published here, been fraudulently manipulated on a massive scale.
Their manufactured result allowed Council Leader, Bob Myles, to claim that: ‘Arbroath has spoken’ and that he was ‘going to give Arbroath what Arbroath has said it wants’, close the two schools (the easily refurbishable Muirfield is pictured below) and build the new one on the Westway.
When the status of the surveys was eventually exposed, with the clearly genuine responses almost universally opposed to the proposal, the council administration refused to disavow it. They would not consider changing their course of action – or even conducting a second set of surveys under proper control conditions. They simply went ahead and voted as they had always intended.
All of this would be more than enough evidence of malpractice on the part of the council and manipulation by person or persons, more or less unknown.
But more has just emerged – a central non-compliance which must render the consultation illegal.
Consultation process illegal
During a door to door survey of public opinion on the closures, members of the Muirfield Action Group came across a number of parents who had not been informed that the consultation was even taking place.
It turned out that these were almost universally parents of young children not yet at school. A local lawyer collected statements from a number of these parents and wrote to Angus Council asking why these people – statutory consultees in the terms of the Schools Act 2010 – had not been given equal treatment?
The lawyer expected to get back an apology and an predicable explanation – that it was a difficult task to contact every parent of small children in the area; but that every effort had been made; and the Council had fulfilled its legal obligations.
He could never have anticipated the reply that was forthcoming.
One David Thompson, replied on behalf of Angus Council. Mr Thompson goes by the resonant title of ‘Principal Solicitor’ for Angus Council. Such a title is an assurance that, as a prerequisite to employment, its holder has an understanding of the law and the ability to interpret Acts of Parliament.
In this case that assurance would seem to be misplaced – and to quite a remarkable degree.
Thomson, on behalf of Angus Council, denied point blank that the lawyer’s clients were ‘relevant consultees’. (Ed: the full text of this letter is given below this article, on each of its two pages.)
He said:
‘I note your view that it would appear that the children of your clients would be entitled to attend the proposed new school within two years of the serving of the proposal document and should, therefore, have a say in the consultation.
‘The education authority do not accept this is correct.’
Let ‘s be clear here.
Angus Council are saying that they do not accept that the parents of 1 – 3 year olds who reside in the catchment areas of the two schools proposed for closure are entitled to ‘have a say in the consultation’.
Not content with this jaw dropping statement, Mr Thomson goes on to expand on his unusual interpretation of the Schools (Consultation) Act. 2010.
‘The new school is not proposed to be open until 13th August 2013 or as soon as possible thereafter. This is more than two years after the publication of the proposal paper. Accordingly, and having regard to the provisions of schedule 2 to the 2010 Act, your clients are not deemed to be “relevant consultees” within the meaning of that schedule and are not entitled to receive notice of the relevant proposal in terms of Section 6(1) of the 2010 Act.’
He goes on to accept that the parents’ children in question would be entitled to attend the nursery at either of the closing schools within two years.
Let us look at the schedules of the Act that Mr Thomson quotes.
- Schedule 2(1)(c) Relevant Consultees (Closure)
This identifies:
‘the parents of any children expected by the education authority to attend any affected school within two years of the date of publication of the proposal paper’.
This makes it clear that the parent of any child who is due to attend a school that is to close within two years of the publication of the proposal to close is a ‘relevant consultee’.
Perhaps Muirfield and Timmergreens Nursery schools are somehow not ‘affected schools’ under the terms of the Act? Perhaps, Mr Thomson checked this out?
- Schedule 1(2)(a)
This states an “affected school” is “a school which it is proposed be discontinued”. Perhaps Mr Thomson established that Nursery Schools were excluded from the Act?
- Schedule 1 (1)
This defines closure as (b) ‘discontinue- (I) all the nursery classes in a school.
Just for the ultimate clarification, the statutory guidance to the Act defines an affected school as: ‘This means any school under the management of an education authority and includes nursery schools which are under authority management i.e. run by them’.
So:
- these children are under two years from entering nursery school
- they live in the catchment areas
- both schools meet the requirement as schools proposed for closure
- and yet Angus council are adamant that they are correct to deny the parents of these children the status of ‘relevant consultee’?
It would appear that Mr Thomson – the ‘Principal Solicitor’ for Angus Council – has been unable to understand the very clear definitions of ‘school’, ‘affected school” and ‘relevant consultee’ – which are cited above and given lucid prominence in both the 2010 Schools Act and in t statutory guidance to that Act.
The number of those the council has excluded under his advice is substantial. The average year group for the catchment areas is 64 children, so two years worth adds up to around 130. The parents of some of these will have been invited by having older siblings already at school or nursery – but the likeihood is that the number of excluded statutory consultees will be significant.
The Data Protection Act decoy
In a final belt-and-braces defence, Mr Thomson blames the Data Protection Act (DPA) as the reason why the education authority could not use council records to contact parents of children not yet at school.
Yet again it appears that he has failed to read and understand the relevant legislation.
The addresses of registered births for the previous three years would be unlikely to be classified as sensitive information. The DPA makes provision for the sharing of information between government departments in these circumstances: ‘Where processing is necessary for administering justice, or for exercising statutory, governmental, or other public functions’.
In the absence of Ken Macdonald, Scotland’s Assistant Information Commissioner, the English Commissioner’s Office has confirmed that the ‘legitimate interests’ condition provides grounds to process
personal data in a situation where an organisation needs to do so for the purpose of its own legitimate interests or the legitimate interests of the third party that the information is disclosed to.
This condition cannot be satisfied if the processing is unwarranted because it prejudices the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the individual whose data is being processed. This condition cannot legitimise the processing of sensitive personal data.
Names and addresses are not classed as sensitive information.
The advisor concerned was very clear that local authorities could share such information to meet the statutory need to notify statutory consultees.
The fact is that there was no will to do so. Under Mr Thompson’s advice, Angus Council did not understand parents as the statutory consultees they unequivocally are.
The position now
Presumably Mr Thomson given his very senior title, has a law degree to his name. At this moment it is almost impossible to imagine how he got it.
- He has failed to understand the governing legislation for what his local authority is trying to do. This has led to an illegal consultation process which will now have to be scrapped, as statutory obligations have not been met.
- He has been ignorant of the operation of the Data Protection Act, a key piece of general public sector legislation.
- He has not bothered to check his flawed understanding of this, as the Arbroath campaigners have done, with the Information Commission.
- He has in effect admitted that Angus Council have made no effort to contact the group of relevant consultees who, arguably, have the greatest interest of all in this process.
As one of the forgotten hordes has commented already on For Argyll: ‘I have also just seen a response to a solicitors letter that states my wife is not a relevant consultee – but let’s not forget my son will be in the very first nursery class to attend this new school. How much more relevant can one be? Please note this response was from Angus Council’s legal department. It does seem that the only relevant people are the ones the current administration makes up’. (This, presumably, is a reference to the ‘surveys’.)
What is now in the public domain is a two page legal letter from a ‘Principal Solicitor’ with scarcely an accurate legal point to be seen.
This is an open admission that Angus Council had not contacted relevant consultees and that they had never realised them – and still do not – to have the legal relevance the Act confers upon them.
Iain Nisbet of the Govan Law Centre’s Education Law Unit – Scotland’s expert legal resource in the field of education, has been spoken to by one of the campaigners and agrees with the interpretation of the sections of the 2010 Schools Act quoted above.
There is now documented overall evidence of multiple fundamental failings, questionable practice, ignorance of the law and what could be described as deliberate chicanery in the withholding of key information.
A member of the audience on today’s BBC Radio Scotland Big Debate held in Oban, memorably described ‘consultation’ as being ‘no more than a declaration of intent’. This is clearly how it has been treated by Angus Council as it was by Argyll and Bute Council.
Can there be any doubt now that the decision of the council will be called in, with the Angus sent back to the drawing board to consult all the people of Arbroath properly?
If the Education Secretary does not, in these circumstances, call in and reject this decision from Angus Council, then a substantial amount of Parliamentary time has been wasted and the Schools (Consultation) Act is beyond the point where revision by the new Commission for the Delivery of Rural Education has any utility.
The photographs accompanying this article are by copyright holder, Paul Reid of AngusPictures.
UPDATE: There is a new support article in the chain on this subject: Arbroath school review’s Westway proposal: cost, safety, capacity, amenity
NOTE 1 Below are the two pages of the letter Angus Council Principal Solicitor wrote to an Arbroath lawyer denying that the parents of children who would enter nursery education within the next two years are the statutory consultees that they indisputably are.
NOTE 2: For David Thompson’s information, two sources of confirmation of the operation of the Data Protection Act in the above respect can be found here.
NOTE 3: The articles in this chain are:
- Angus Council leader compares FOI to phone hacking
- Miles more on Myles: Angus Council, FOI and Arbroath schools review (This article links to a number of subsidiary detailed articles)
- Westway school latest: consultation illegal as Angus Council legal eagle proves turkey
- Arbroath school review’s Westway proposal: cost, safety, capacity, amenity
Congratulations to ForArgyll on excellent coverage and reporting on Arbroath schools. Just when readers must be thinking that there cannot possibly be anymore skeletons in the cupboard…there are…and quite literally!!
In 1860/1861 in a neighbouring field at Hospitalfield House south of the proposed new school site, an ancient graveyard was discovered containing 100-120 skeletons of men, women and children. The well preserved skeletons were believed to be that of victims of the plague and leprosy. The Chapel of St John was a plague hospital run by monks from Arbroath Abbey dating back to the 1200′s. It was later extended to become Hospitalfield House mansion. The owner Patrick Allan Fraser ordered that the skeletons be reburied. Foundations of a chapel were also found. While the field described is not the proposed site, it is nearby, and it is possible there could be more graves or items of historical value. Councillor Nield said that Historic Scotland did not believe there were graves, but an archaeological evaluation will take place. If carried out correctly, it could take some time and delay the start of building. Should this not have been done before contemplating building a school?
More can be found on this on URL: http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/arch-352-1/dissemination/pdf/vol_005/5_135_137.pdf
Many are of the view that planning permission should not be granted to build a modern designed school close to Hospitalfield House of historical value.
Mike Russell, Cabinet Secretary for Education, hosted a dinner for top level university and college leaders at this prestigious historical house in January.
See-URL:http://www.arbroathherald.co.uk/news/local- headlines/education_secretary_at_hospitalfield_1_461793 January 21 2011
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Fascinating insight into the land where they propose putting the new school.
Is there any truth in the rumour that one of the ancient laws about protected land – where the school football pitch is supposed to be going – states that you are not allowed to remove any items of clothing on it?
I heard a suggestion that children would not be allowed to take off cardigans etc on the football pitch. Sounds crazy, but then this whole proposal is loopy!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Talking of school closure consultations as merely ‘declarations of intent’, in East Renfrewshire’s modified proposal to close Robslee Primary, the revelation is made that by August 2012, there will be a ‘part relocation of pre-5 places from Giffnock nursery class’.
The Act stipulates that ‘relocation in part or in whole of a nursery class’ is a relevant proposal. No consultation on this part relocation has been approved, let alone started. Thankfully for ERC, the nursery relocation is not subject to the possibility of a ministerial call-in, so it seems they really can just make this a declaration of intent.
Fingers crossed for the Muirfield/Timmergreens call-in!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Interested outsider -
Does this mean ERC can push on regardless with the plans to discontinue some of the nursery classes at Giffnock, as long as council agrees? I would imagine this will only be the case if they are given the green light to close Robslee.
From what I have heard about the proposal, it seems crazy that they want to shut down Robslee to free the school building up for another school to use. What makes the pupils at Robslee any less worthy of their school building than the other school – OLM (I think)?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Interested Outside,
Run that past me again. The pre-5 relocation is definitely ocvered by the act for the reasons you mentioned (one of the A&B proposals involved closure of a pre-5 and the Council totally ommitted it from the consultaiton process – it was a gimme for a call in) – so on what grounds would it not be subject to a potential call in?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m struggling to understand this. Aside from all the Robslee being closed to make way for other schools thing, if they are talking of gradual/partial closure/relocation of nursery classes from Giffnock, should that not be a separate consultation in its own right?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes CSB, there must be a consultation on the part relocation of the Giffnock Nursery class. We believe that the fact that implementation of the revised proposal relies on a certain outcome of that proposal which has not started yet should make our consultation invalid, but the call-in did not mention that.
Integrity, my understanding is that as it is a “part-relocation” not a “closure”, the Scottish Government does not need to be informed of any decision and there can be no check.
And yes Ewan, I think they can, and will, do whatever they want, which does seem to go a little counter to the whole “Consultation” thing!
On the call-in, I have heard that our education department thinks there is no clear indication of what details ministers want from it, but “at least takes comfort from the fact that procedures were correct.”
As for why, the future use of the building is believed by many (including more than one councillor) to be a main reason for the proposal. Although the council and education department deny this is the main reason for the proposal, our director of education has now said that either of two different schools ‘could’ be the happy recipient of the Robslee building.
But Robslee has a dirty little secret which goes some way to explaining why our kids could be seen as “less worthy”; nearly two-thirds of the 160ish kids at the school are there on (yuck) placing request; around half of those are from (even yuckier) GLASGOW.
The director of education and head of the council have both made it clear that reducing the number of primary school places is the only way to make our precious ER schools “less vulnerable to placing requests” from “children who do not live within the community”. Shocking in a forward thinking, inclusive society.
In a move slightly reminiscent of the failure by A&BC, as I understand it, to take account of reduction of income in the grant settlement it would incur by closing rural schools, ERC education department have claimed they will save money in the future by closing Robslee and no longer having to “part-subsidise” the Glasgow residents who would otherwise have attended the school. When questioned on how their calculations of those savings had taken into account the significant amount of grant income that will be lost by teaching fewer pupils, the eventual reply was that it had not been taken into account.
The proposal is also in breach of the 1967 Schools Premises regulations.
Oh, and did I mention the complete absence of any pretence that there could be any educational benefits to the children of Robslee resulting from this proposal? Sorry, nothing beyond the fictional “larger class sizes and more flexible learning groups”. Maintaining the status quo is what our proposal aspires to.
Apologies for ranting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Interested Outsider,
I would encourage your MSP (assuming they are supportive) to table a Parliamentary question to ascertain whether a ‘part relocation’ which is really a part closure could be subject to the call in process.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Does sound to me as though they are presuming Robslee is closing and quickly moving on with their other plans. Plans, presumably, that have to take place due to potential over-crowding caused by merging Robslee with Giffnock?
It’s certainly worth a shot with the MSP and the Parliamentary question. I can also imagine that it’s agonising for you having to wait on the outcome of ‘call-in’. If and it’s still an IF we get to that stage in Arbroath, it could be a long wait for us to get an outcome.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If ERC claim that the educational benefit of merging the schools is bigger class sizes (30+) and more teachers, I’m not sure what benefits they can claim for the children who are left at Robslee during the phased closure – the school will be ripped in half, as will the staff.
Some kids will have 2 years of this stunted school, before moving to Giffnock – for one year, then another transition to High School – 2 major transitions in 2 years cannot be possibly seen to be beneficial to anyone, never mind primary age children.
Interested Outsider – the Education Department do not even pretend that the status quo will be maintained. The children at Robslee will lose their IT suite (no such facility at Giffnock) – ERC say this does not matter, IT lessons are no longer required, because “Children are increasingly well versed in the use of technology at home, and the previous requirement for ‘computer lessons’ is reducing”.
And in reply to the reduction in gym access, they say “Physical Education and exercise need not be confined to a gym”. I’d like to the see the Director of Education run around the tarmac playground in his shorts on a wet January morning (actually no I wouldn’t, I’m going to have nightmares now). Currently they are next door to a huge playing field (> 2 football pitches big!). They will lose access to this also.
They also lose their multi-award winning outdoor classroom, that they have grown and nurtured themselves.
And as the council’s own testing shows Robslee to have a higher academic record, they can’t claim that they will receive a better education at Giffnock.
Giffnock also lacks a hall that can accommodate the whole school – so no school wide assemblies, shows, performances.
I could go on!
If only the status quo was being maintained. The HMIE report said that they had to do more to convince the parents of the educational benefits, but they haven’t even tried – I don’t see how they can, there simply are none. If there were any EBs, we would be mature enough to recognise them, but I challenge anyone to find one, just one!
Apologies for rant
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We are privileged to have 3 “local” MSPs, one Labour, one SNP and one Conservative, all very supportive (and a Lib Dem Provost to complete the cross-party sweep!).
If you read the plans, it is hard not to be against them…the only people we have found who think it’s a good idea are unfortunately the people who can vote to make it happen.
The Provost was forced to resign from the Education Committee, as he wouldn’t take the whip to vote for Robslee’s closure – this was despite numerous assurances from the Administration councillors that there would be no whip.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh, this is beyond a joke.
If a school has to be closed then parents can accept it providing they are given assurances that their child will get a better education and better facilities. We all have to trust our local council to do this.
Angus Council have been “cooking the books” to make the data look a certain way. Then their lawyer tries to pretend that they do not need to consult people.
It is a disgrace. None of this is fair and open. In fact, there seems to be a lot of unfairness and lies.
As for the Robslee case in East Renfrewshire, it too is a disgrace. Read through all the data on the save robslee website.
There are NO good reasons at all to close Robslee Primary School. The council want to close a 40 year old school building with large playing space and replace it with a 105 year old school building which has limited space and is next to a busy road with no room for expansion. Why on earth would we close a modern, full and successful school?
What’s worse is that East Renfrewshire Council have told the parents that closing the school is a BENEFIT to their children and the community- nonsense!
It is also clear that the East Renfrewshire school estate contains other buildings from the 19th century and complicated or just down right error ridden transition arrangements.
These councils are not playing fair.
Show us the educational benefits.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Integrity, I have just fired off that e-mail.
Ewan, agonising indeed, let’s hope it’s worth the wait for us all!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By the way, new speed on the site is great, but try as I might, I just cannot get to see that lawyer’s letter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Interested outsider: See if this works:
http://forargyll.com/2011/07/arbroath-schools-reviews-angus-council-roads-department-email-to-education-department/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Woodfarm
Regarding your point about class sizes is one A&B tried to get round by simply stating that educational attainment is all about the teacher and not about the class size.
They chose to ignore all research into the matter – well that isn’t strictly true. They accepted it existed (though never referred to it) then tried to claim it wasn’t all that reliable because (and I quote)
“Educational research is very complex in interpretation as you will imagine; particular settings, study sizes, not to mention the bias of the commissioners all make it very difficult to transfer the findings.”
Then then go on to reference research by JOhn Hattie on class sizes which support their argument and say
“The Hattie research has a great deal of credibility because of its scale and inclusion of a cross section of contributing studies. Again we by no means take this research as an authoritative and transferrable source, but we do consider it to be highly credible”
So A&B stated that the Hattie research is neither authoritative nor transferrable however its scale makes it credible! Maybe it would be useful to recap on the scale of the projects they are choosing to dismiss!
Project STAR ($12m, 79 schools, 11,600 students, 1,330 teachers) and CSPAR (over 10,000 students, 330 schools. A&B clearly allocated allocates credibility based on whether the study supports the argument for closure.
I dare say the same may happen at other Councils.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Interested outsider, the most startling point about that email it its date. Almost a whole year on they’ve done nothing to address that issue.
How about choosing a day and staging a mass drop off at the site with placards instead of schoolbags? If you contacted the police to organise it, and they had objections, you could add those to your portfolio. If they don’t object, I’m sure the local press could oblige with photos of the resulting traffic chaos.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Anne, I think the e-mail you refer to concerns the Arbroath situation – not Robslee.
I do believe though that Robslee held a ‘cattle drive’ to highlight concerns they had over traffic problems caused by moving kids to their new school. I read it was very successful and was an ingenious idea.
For us we thought long and hard about a protest on the Westway but we thought better of it. It’s one thing making a point and getting some telling pictures for the press, it’s another putting kids lives in danger to do that.
That’s how bad the road is. We would be too scared that a kid would step off onto the road or fall onto it during a protest.
Making a point on the traffic is also not needed. Anyone standing watching traffic on that road for five minutes – especially at peak school times – would see it’s nonsensical to attempt building a school on that road.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Not a protest, a trial!
http://www.saverobsleeprimary.co.uk/index.php/news/school-run-trial-fail/
We have to cross a busy 4 lane road to get to Giffnock – it’s the main non-motorway road in and out of Glasgow from the Southside, the A77.
The unpublished independent traffic report suggested a long list of road improvements, but still said there was simply too many children, the local roads simply couldn’t cope with any more traffic safely – this is why they are now proposing to almost close the nursery, to remove those children.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We got a pretty damning assessment of the road our school is situated under FOI. It’s perhaps late in the day but it’s worth looking into that and putting that case forward.
I guess the only comeback ERC could have is that there is already a school sited at Giffnock and children will have the cross the road but the fact that an independent report is suggesting problems should send alarm bells ringing over this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
On school and class size, I had posted a some very useful (and authoritative!) information but it seems to have vanished with the upgrade. No doubt it will reappear sometime but here is the link if you want a comprehensive look at the issues of school size (you can find the equally voluminous literature on class size on the same site)
http://www.ncef.org/rl/size.cfm
This is mostly American studies but the consensus is pretty clear: education is best delivered in small classes and in small schools. For the latter the upper limit seems to be around 300-400 with schools of about 150 being seen as ideal (and this number is quite similar to the ideal size of a company or military units and reflects ease and effectiveness of communication with groups).
Of course, smaller schools tend to be more expensive on a per pupil basis (though there is an upper limit here), however, research has shown that they are more cost-effective ie a better educational outcome is achieved per dollar in small schools than in big ones.
The problem for councils is that there really is no (and I mean no, nil, null, nihil, nothing, nada, zero, zippo and SFA) support for increased educational benefit from increased class or school size. The Act thus provides a conundrum: how do you close any school on the basis of educational arguments (rather than financial) if there is no educational benefit to be had from increased class or school size? The answer must lie in demonstrating (and evidencing) that the resulting outcome genuinely provides better educational opportunities for children: ie better playgrounds (and that must mean larger, greener and better equipped), better PE facilities that can be accessed by all children; better music tuition (ditto); a broader curriculum (only really relevant at secondary); a shorter travel time to school; better extra curricular activities (that can be accessed by everyone); more space per pupil…. I could go on.
The problem that is common to all of the closure proposals highlighted on this site is that councils are offering none of these and are instead making up a fantasy that larger schools are better for children when the evidence is to the contrary.
If you read through the long list of abstracts you will find studies from the US showing that what councils should focus on is reducing the cost of backroom operations rather than looking to cut front line services. Also, the idea of teaching clusters which share admin resources (and this includes management functions) looks like a good way of achieving big school economies while maintaining small school teaching levels and environment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It comes back to fairness, openess and transparency. Any research or information that was not in favour of closure was illegally omitted from our proposals. Councils just don’t seem to get this concept. You have to list the bas points – end of.
Unfortunately, when you start looking at the bad points, you end up certainly in most proposals making a case for retention and that defeats the council and they’re misinformed agenda of closing small schools. Do none of them get that closing these schools does not save bags of money? They don’t get to keep that grant if they close them!
It seems no matter what the circumstances are in all of these cases, there is a major issue with transparency in these Local Authorities and this is where a policing body is needed to ensure they play fair.
In the case of Argyll and Bute Council, when it came to the Public Meetings they went away from each one desperately trying to find a molecule of research that supported their claims and came up wanting with some half-arsed report from a guy in Wales that was completely slated as one of the poorest to have ever been written on any subject ever in the world.
These authorities need to be kicked into touch. One of the jobs of the Commission on Rural Education, must be to identify how these Councils can be held accountable for making a terrible process into a catastrophic one.
Having just been through 2 such damaged processes, it is horrendous for children, horrendous for families and horrendous for communities to recover from. Enough.
I’d like to finish my rant though with one of the few highlights of the consultation process.
It was a lovely night at Ardchattan, at their public meeting and the QIO David Chandler had just ended his speech about research with telling us CSPAR and STAR both came to the conclusion that larger class sizes were better. I will forever remember the look on Dr Douglas MacKenzie’s face as he swallowed his tongue! LOL
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
LOL. It was just as well that Mike Russell beat me to the punch in responding to that one as my diplomatic pointing out of the utter stupidity of that remark would probably have fallen well short of Mr Russell’s subtle demolition (I would probably have shrieked: “Can you no read, ye glaekit tumshie?! And remind me again, how much we are paying you?!”).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
They can pay me £55k to screw up. I would excel for them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We can’t give ERC any credit for their larger class sizes Esucation Benefit – they just cut and pasted it directly from a Glasgow City Council proposal!
ERC:
“41. Robslee Primary School has a low and declining intake. Larger and more flexible learning groups in the proposed amalgamated school would allow for greater peer interaction and access to the full benefits of Curriculum for Excellence.
42. Larger schools allow for greater flexibility in the deployment of staff to meet the specific needs of children. They also provide a greater opportunity for sharing of good
practice across a greater number of staff. Through the proposal, children would benefit from this broader staff expertise and range of learning and teaching methodologies. ”
GCC:
“5.2 St Agnes’ Primary School has a low roll. Larger and more flexible learning groups allow for greater peer interaction and access to the full benefits of Curriculum for Excellence.
5.1 Larger schools allow for greater flexibility in the deployment of staff to meet the specific needs of children. They also provide an opportunity for sharing good practice across a greater number of staff. Children will benefit from this broader staff expertise and range of learning and teaching methodologies”
Deja vu anyone?!
This is the only Educational Benefit proposed for the merger. The educational environment is of much poorer quality, the facilities are worse, the school is much further away (most children will now be driven rather than walk). This is the only “benefit” – and it doesn’t even apply to our situation! Glasgow first used it when merging a number of very small Special Needs units together into a better building – you could see the argument there.
They haven’t expanded on how their perceived benefits extend to the kids left behind during the phased closure. The phased closure was brought in by ERC after the initial consultation, which proposed our kids transfer from their relatively modern school in good condition, to portcabins in Giffnock’s playground. In retrospect, this initial proposal was just to deflect us, to make us focus our arguments on overcrowding (Giffnock will be at 112% with all of our bunch).
Fairness, Openness and Transparency are 3 words clearly missing from ERC’s education department’s dictionary!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Integrity, it seems Angus council didn’t see the need to put forward the educational benefits, other than waxing lyrical about how much better a new building suitable for CFE will be ao and not to mention the extra benefit of having a sense of purpose being so close to Hospitalfield house, who it seems can’t wait to get new neighbours(as long as there is no noise.)
CSB – I’d happily cock up for a council for that much, hell i’d even get it right on occasion if that was what floated their boat.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yet another Council who desperately cling to the argument that schools with small roles cannot deliver the CfE – despite evidence to the contrary.
I dare say also another Council that states their opinion without being able to back it with empirical evidence and then claiming their opinion is simply sound logic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
From our Consultation report:
‘Enhanced opportunities for social interaction and peer learning and peer support’
Seems to be a few buzzwords to mask the fact that schools are going to be overcrowded.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Apparently there are a number of educational benefits associated with the design of the new primary school. This made up the majority of the educational benefits outlined.
My personal favourites ‘pupil toilet areas, cloaks storage and general circulation arrangements designed to provide safe and easy to supervise pupil movement;’
and
‘natural day-lighting supplemented with artificial luminaries, where necessary, to provide illumination levels that fully support the activities of the school,’
Forgive me for my ignorance but should things like that not be a given with any school?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To quote our resident numpty Cleland Sneddon,
“Buildings don’t deliver education”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well it seems in Arbroath they do.
Which makes it twice as galling for me, when councillors are claiming a better education is gained from a better building while leaving children like mine to be non-educated, pressumably in buildings not fit for purpose., with no prospect of them being improved any time soon.
Lucky for me i believe it’s more to do with the teachers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ah, funny Crazy She-Bat as we were always told that the building was ‘the key’ to Education.
One of the councillors at the vote meeting – who claims to moonlight as a teacher – even suggested that you can’t teach CfE in anything but a new school building. We have 53 primary schools in Angus, does that mean we need 53 new schools?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I can’t believe i missed this ‘benfit’
‘attractive social and circulation space and wet areas with sinks to support art and other ‘wet’ activities;’
Oh well as long as there will be sinks?!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And in my haste to share it have proved there couldn’t have been any sinks in my old school.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
While not having read all the points this one from Dr. Mack caught my eye…. “Also, the idea of teaching clusters which share admin resources (and this includes management functions) looks like a good way of achieving big school economies while maintaining small school teaching levels and environment.”
This is precisely the model which was started in A&B a number of years ago (in SRC times in fact)by the then Senior Adviser Jack Queen.
Ask Carol Walker about it – she was there at the inception!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
‘natural day-lighting supplemented with artificial luminaries, where necessary, to provide illumination levels that fully support the activities of the school,’
That will be windows and rooms with lights then.
Even in Argyll, we stopped educating children in caves some time ago.
This is not to knock good modern design: a good building CAN improve educational performance but it comes in well behind having good, well motivated teachers and supportive parents.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To Newsroom: Can I suggest that the comment numbering is continuous through pages – I think this would make the arguments clearer – especially to newcomers..?
That would make this Comment number 30 in this thread, not Number 5…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A senior member of ERC’s education department did point out that large and open spaces gave children more places to hide and so encouraged bullying. The children of Robslee certainly won’t have large and open spaces to worry about if they are moved to Giffnock!!!
It beggers belief. These people will say and do anything if they think it will win their case. Let’s hope the Executive can see beyond their spin.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh I had forgotten that one! That was in response at a meeting to provide a “concrete” educational benefit that anyone could understand, not just educational buzzwords – a smaller playground means less room for bullies to hide apparently!
The smaller playground at Giffnock would be perfect for this. Might be a bit noisy though, with the A77 on one side and the railway on the other.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The noise will drown out the sounds of any name calling so be good for anti bullying.
In all seriousness that really is scraping the barrel, councils should be fined on a sliding scale based on how ridiculous their claims are, from their own personal pockets! Soon be enough for any amount of needed improvements!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Newsroom, thanks, that link worked but I was hoping to see the letter from the numpty lawyer!
CSB, my biggest take home from the spice review (not sure if it was the cspar or star study) was that while smaller classes seem to deliver better education in general, what can really cause education to suffer is moving kids from small classes to big ones. Oh, and open, transparent and fair, I think ERC education department missed school on the day those were defined, and they felt the guidance from the Act saying they should provide evidence to support their views didn’t really apply to them; bigger classes and overcrowded schools are great because they say so.
Ewan, windows, sinks, lights AND corridors, they are really planning to spoil your kids.
Finally DDM, I have not read all those papers, but I love the idea of the ideal school size being 150; that makes Robslee nigh on perfect!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Outsider: I think it was the CSPAR study, but what they found was that moving children from small class sizes to larger ones reversed the advantage they had gained from being in a smaller class. This was true of only the youngest years (p1-p3; after that the effect was too small to be discernible and there was no obvious effect by secondary years (which is what most parents would vouch for – as weans get older they get tougher).
Robslee does indeed sound an ideal size for an urban primary. As I have said before, what matters (for the children) is not so much school size as class size but school size matters in terms of internal communication and leadership. 150 is probably the UPPER limit for this effect. Of course there are many primary schools where there are larger numbers of children but they still deliver excellent education. But this is despite their size rather than because of it.
In the case of Robslee, my understanding is that the cost of education there has nothing to do with their council’s avowed intention to close it. Nothing also to do with the educational benefit of the children who are taught there. That seems to be immaterial to the ER councillors.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Angus Council have stated that both the schools they want to close both schools as they are both under occupied. Two things I would like to say.
Firstly if they are both so under occupied would it not make more sense for them to build smaller units on the existing sites to ensure our children have the educatiion required, without the fear of having to cross such a busy road.
Secondly if enough parents boycot this proposed new school by sending them to other schools in the area, surely this will result in this new super school being severely under occupied, therefore being surplus to requirements. I for one am not sure I wish to send my son to somewhere that puts him in danger having already lost 1 child my wife & I could not go through this again. I also believe it would be irresponsible for me to knowingly put my child at such obvious risk.
I like a lot of other people believe that money would be better spent upgrading all other schools, but also ensuring they keep investing in the most important thing schools have that is the teachers. They are what make our schools what they are not bricks & mortar.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
DDM, certainly there were savings claimed, but the financial argument was unsubstantiated and the head of the council said “it’s not all about money”. Educationally, neither kids at Robslee or Giffnock will benefit; the proposal claims that the schools will be supported to “ensure that standards are maintained”. Even the “bigger schools + bigger classes = better” myth is not used to say our kids education will actually get better.
The educational benefits statement was copied, mostly verbatim, from ERs proposal (successful) to close Auchenback. In fact, if you google Robslee Auchenback the second or third result is a pdf called Auchenback Primary School which is the consultation document on Robslee. The only difference being some explanation of how Robslee, at 75% full, is under capacity and has people from Glasgow in it, an indication that having Glasgow residents removed from the school would be an educational benefit?
Kevin, the issue of capacity brings me to you. I am sorry for your loss.
I don’t like using “under-capacity” as a main reason to close a school; capacity calculations need to be revisited in light of changes to maximum P1 class size legislation and population size changes. The current dip in population everywhere is predicted (in some government paper I read) to rise again sooner, and to a higher level, than previously expected.
I agree this vast sum of (borrowed) money could be more usefully spent elsewhere, but possibly Angus want to keep a couple of schools in an extreme state of disrepair so that they can benefit from the next round of SFT funding.
I just hope Muirfield is not abandoned by parents before this absurd proposal is actually decided on by ministers, otherwise the school could dwindle away and closure could become a fait accompli.
Again, good luck to Muirfield!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This ancient capacity measure needs to be revised and a National agreement on. The 1.5/1.7 calculation actually goes back to 1968. Obviously, this is out of date and has bears no relation to modern teaching methods and the Curriculum for Excellence. Active Learning is now such a massive part of Education that the whole issue of capacity should be declared null and void. If there is extra space in a school, I am sure it will if not already be put to good use as part of the facilities for pupils like in the case of North Bute and their IT room.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It has to be pointed out that while we are operating at 62% capacity at Muirfield the extra space hasn’t gone to waste.
We have three computer suites – one for each stage of schooling and we also have a multi-sensory space in the heart of our school, not tucked away like others, so that all children can make use of the ASN facilities.
Our head teacher is outstanding. She wants a friendly, open and welcoming environment with a policy of ‘inclusion’ so no children feel different and parents all feel they can approach her at any given point.
These are major reasons as to why we are fighting to save our school. These are benefits that will be lost in a new school.
It should also be pointed out that Timmergreens, the other school involved in the proposal, has an excellent reputation in the town and serves a community well.
Taking aside the road issue, the consultation flaws, the sabotaged survey and the detrimental affect on funding for other schools this proposal will see a perfectly fit – and easily adaptable school being closed down at the expense of keeping other needy schools in grave need of refurbishment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Perhaps Kevin or any other Timmergreens parent could defend their school as I feel I can’t do it justice, not being a parent there. There are very strong arguments for retaining both schools though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks for that Ewan, of course I would like to defend Timmergreens. My Daughter spent nearly 8 years being educated by the teachers from there. I have to say apart from 1 teacher she had a very positive experience and because of the class sizes the teachers knew all the children very well, but not only did they know them well they knew how to deal with them.
Timmergreens primary school have a great area for our children to play where they are safe. They also have an excellent extra things for children to get involved in from sports to music classes. As with Muirfield Timmergreens have had good facilities for teaching children computer studies. they also have good support staff who were always on hand to support the children.
I am aware that the school is in need of repair but hte building is by no means done, and with the right amount of money invested in it could last another 30+ years. I was a bit worried when I heard that the head teacher of the school had been told that the repair required to sort the roof had to come out of her budget, surely teachers know nothing about building repairs they are there to teach no maintain buildings. Also should it not be the case that the education department meets the cost to building repairs not each individual teaching budget.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is certainly the case in A&B. The school estate is centrally managed and Head Teachers only have things to do with their running costs to manage.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In the past 18 months, Robslee has had all its windows replaced (with the best quality double glazing possible according to a surveyor on our team), a new gym floor and a new entrance/vestibule. The gym, where the assemblies are also held, is a great space, it has large windows all down one side, which give a great view and flood the school with light. In contrast, the daughter of one of our team burst into tears on seeing the dingy, cramped gym at Giffnock
Its building rating, B, was assessed before all this work was done.
The majority of the Giffnock building dates from 1906 – it’s older than the Scotland St Museum in Glasgow, where children go to learn how children used to be taught!
As for capacity, both Robslee and Giffnock are around 75% full (although the council forgot about the nursery at Giffnock- by their method, it is 88%).
There is not much spare room at either school – the Giffnock parents can’t understand how the proposal was made, as they can’t see where extra children would fit in. They tell us their children are allotted 16 minutes shifts in the dining hall at lunchtime – would this come down to 10 minutes?!
Giffnock is a good school, we are not denying that. It however, has serious issues – the Director of Education has said that it is not a suitable location for a school. It is well over a hundred years old. It breaks the 1967 School Building regulations, particularly in terms of playground space. We can’t see how squeezing our children into Giffnock is going to improve the education of our children, or those at Giffnock. The overcrowding will get less after 5 or 6 years – but this is the whole time of our childrens’ primary education, which we all know are crucial.
With the future use of the school being the main (but unstated) driving force behind the closure proposal, we just don’t understand how the council has been able to put this proposal forward. It’s as if they have not read the Act. It is very unlikely that the current educational standards could be maintained, never mind improved.
We just don’t know what we will do if the phased closure goes ahead – we’ll have children at 2 different schools. Oh the council will let us transfer the elder one early, removing him from all his friends, but this is not an option for the majority of children at the school eg those who are non-catchment (eg they might live 300m away!), with younger siblings. Their siblings will not get to register for Robslee, and will not be able to get into Giffnock (it will be over 100% capacity). So their parents will have the choice of having children at 2 schools, or removing their elder child completely from his peer group, and sending to a different school again. It’s going to tear our community apart.
As a result, more local people will try to get into the school which is expected to take over the Robslee building, causing more over-crowding there.
It’s a divisive, unpleasant proposal, which has no benefits for anyone involved. They can’t even demonstrate it will save them money!
Apologies for ranting and post hijacking again…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
WoodfarmER – Every time i hear something about the proposed closure of Robslee i get more astounded, who exactly do these councils think they are, that they can just ignore acts of parliment?! Having been at a meeting where Councillor ‘Nailed’ had a wee rant at ‘your’ government i saw then that he at least feels he knows better…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Have I heard this right from Facebook? The Arbroath closures have been called in?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
YESS!!!!!
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/91982/0119907.pdf
Brilliant, the government would like a meeting or a video conference to discuss!
Great news for Muirfield and Timmergreen!
Well done to all
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wahay! Saw it 30 minutes ago, was holding off announcing it! Wow, a teleconference…I wonder if they will be snooping on the IP address of the computer being used
Well done Ewan et al!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
w00t! Congratulations to all of you! Well done!
Now lets keep everything crossed for the right end result!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ewan said to go ahead and put it up, he might be off celebrating!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Obviously a step in the right direction and it is interesting the SG are fingering both the consultation as being inadequate and the road situation as being of concern. Given the Council’s own traffic department were coming out against the proposal I suspect you will find it is this that kills it.
Well done!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
DDM – I really hope that is the case, for the sake of the other schools in the area as well as these two.
This is a great step in the right direction, fingers crossed that the council won’t be able to blag their way out of it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Congratulations to all at Muirfield and Timmergreens, and especially Ewan Smith for his incredible amount of work.
Thanks to ForArgyll for their support too
Yes a step in the right direction.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You could set up your own survey.
What will happen now?
1. Angus Council will spin a tale of wonder and enchantment and the Scottish Government will think that the fairies will build this new school for nothing and the children will dance merrily through the streets, skipping around the high-speed trucks and lorries with flowers in their hair.
2. Angus Council will put their collective hands up and admit they are a bunch of lying, manipulating, glory-seeking, two-faced pan-handlers.
3. An alien spaceship will land in Arbroath and declare Sandy Longmuir the best Mathematician in the Universe, whilst simultaneously there will be a massive “thump” at a home in Uddinston as a big baldy heid hits the ground as the person it belongs to has just fainted.
4. A rumour will start that the Hospitalfield site is where Angus Council have a secret bunker filled with Weapons of Mass Destruction and America will invade and claim Scotland as the 51st state.
5. The Worldwide Web will disintegrate when every computer in Russia tries to complete this survey.
I’m sure there are plenty more options out there!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It would have been very hard to see how you might NOT call these in. Huge relief for Muirfield and Timmergreens. Well done for putting a great case forward.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To all. Thank you for your amazing posts of support. I was in Aberdeen all day on a family day out but we were delighted when the news came through.
Naturally, it’s only a step towards saving the school but I’m struggling to see how our Council can work their way out of this.
Fingers crossed!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Can anyone explain why the Scottish Government would want a ‘video conference’ with Angus Council? I have never seen this written on any letters sent out to previous schools that have been called in.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Maybe they want to be able to look them in the eye? There are so many issues with this that the questions are endless? Perhaps your MSP will be able to let you know why.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just checkin’ that they still have the equipment, it’s plugged into a compatible line and there is someone there who can operate it? Or even to check it’s not been sold off?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’d love to be a fly on the wall at that video conference. I imagine the Scottish Government just wants to reassure itself that Angus Council has human representatives and isn’t just a bunch of aliens out to conquer the human race by feeding the kids to lorries.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m going to send in an official request to ask the Scottish Government to broadcast the video link.
In the interests of ‘openess and transparency’ I thinkt that is a reasonable request.
Anyone else care to join me?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If the Murdochs can be dragged into a Westminster Parliamentary committee and have the whole thing televised then what excuse can there to not have the Angus interrogation available?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Douglas, given the level of probity demonstrated by Angus Council education officials over many years, any dealings which are done behind closed doors will be viewed with extreme suspicion by the general public. If For Argyll indulge me I may just expand on this in order that the wider public can understand the scale of what we are dealing with here.
I am sure the Scottish Government will want to be as transparent as possible about their handling of this particular call in. In previous cases the explanations given as to why decisions have been approved or refused have been woefully inadequate. I have a feeling lessons have been learned in this regard.
For Argyll have now published quite a few of the comments submitted in the discredited survey. Some of the most personal have yet to be publicly aired. Regardless of who was responsible, ask yourself one question. Exactly what was the mindset of the education official who described himself as “encouraged” by the responses and who considered the comments to be “thoughtful”? Now ask yourself if you would trust this person to enter into closed door negotiations with the Scottish Government to prevent the call in from turning into a refusal of consent?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Sandy Longmuir: QED.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
From the Angus Council website:
‘While the council is disappointed by this decision we welcome the opportunity to have a formal discussion with the government about our proposals for a new school in Arbroath and are confident we can provide Ministers with the assurances they are seeking.’
I’m serious about a live video link. I don’t see why the Scottish Government should be the only people to hear of Angus Council’s ‘assurances’. I’ve been to every public meeting there was on this and read every single document available and have yet to feel ‘assured’ by this proposal.
Why wouldn’t they welcome the chance of ‘assuring’ parents and people in Arbroath that they have done everything right, that this is a great educational idea, that everyone who legally should be consulted has been and that they have got a grand plan for safety?
Shame they couldn’t do any of these things before any votes were cast though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Im with you all the way Ewan, I also believe that to be open and fair we should also be allowed to question some of their responses as they have said from the start that everything they have done was for the people from the west end of the town. I think this should be allowed because it was only after the official cutoff period that other information became available.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Strange, Angus Council’s response is very similar to ERCs. I bet ADES have their own wee secret forum where they can plot and scheme!
From ERC’s Facebook:
“Robslee primary ‘called in’ by the Scottish Government.
While we are disappointed, we fully understand that the complexities of this particular proposal perhaps make this inevitable.
We will present further explanations if required, in the hope that by calling this in, they examine the whole circumstances and come to the same educational conclusions on non-denominational places as we have.”
There was nothing complex about the proposal. Schools should be closed for good reasons, to provide a benefit to the children. There argument was obviously too complex for the local MP (shadow Defence Secretary), 3 MSPs (who include the Convener of the Education Committee, Shadow Education Secretary, so clearly know nothing about education), all the local community councils, 2 out of the 3 local councillors (including one on the Administration), and every parent and person who ever read it to understand.
We are realists. Schools have to close sometimes. I’ve looked at every school closure proposal under the Act, and there is almost always a clear benefit eg a new school building, better facilities, a better learning environment.
We have been offered nothing of benefit. ERC have not been able to convince the parents that raising the class size from an average of 22 to 30+ and removing facilities is going to better our children’s education. Moving children from a busy, relatively modern building, into an over-crowded Victorian one is a retrograde step. Losing teachers, gym time, IT facilities and their award-winning outdoor classroom is just going to instill such a sense of injustice in them. If their community is taken away from them, I don’t know how we are going to explain it to them.
But so pleased for the Arbroath call in. I could never have predicted 8 months ago, that news of a political decision on a school several hundred miles away could make me so happy
Giving us some well-needed cheer – things are a bit gloomy round here at the moment. Knowing that we cannot see, respond or comment on ERC’s response to the Government is very hard, because we now know how economical they can be with the truth, how intricate their plotting can be. Hopefully the Commission will look at this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Woodfarm,
Thanks for your kind support and I feel the same way about Robslee. I totally sympathise with you and all the parents at that school. It does seem to me you have an amazing argument on the educational benefits front.
Looking at it from afar I can’t see educational benefits in your move either and the hope has to be that the Education Minister can see through the obvious nonsense that will be spouted by ERC, just as so many key political figures in your area have been able to do.
Have there been any other quotes from ‘the other side’ since call-in?
I’m expecting some sort of blast in the local paper this week or an anonymous letter from someone in the now infamous ‘silent majority’. You really couldn’t make this ‘silent majority’ nonsense up.
Supposedly, only five to ten per cent of us don’t want this new school, the rest are quietly supportive of the ‘exciting opportunities it brings’. At our two meetings – Education Committee and Full Council – we had two deputations from our side and none from the ‘silent majority’. Our councillors received a pile of emails about the school in the build up to the vote – the ‘most ever’
for any issue according to a councillor who voted FOR the school – and all against the school.
Yet we have a mystery poison pen writer who signs letters in the Arbroath Herald as ‘Silent Majority’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
WoodfarmER, I can guarantee to bring it up at the commission. If councils are consulted subsequent to call-in, there should be the opportunity for schools/communities to respond too.
It would be helpful if Robslee could provide a statement about their experience of/objection to the process. Email me via FB (Anne Cowan Baird) if you can do this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am delighted to hear that the call in has gone ahead in Arbroath as this give the government the opportunity to really look at the facts of the case and make an “informed decision”. The consultation we have had recently with respect to the proposed closure at Robslee was, like the one at Arbroath, deeply flawed and our local council are determined to move our children to a school which offers no educational benefits, despite the strong opposition from all parts of the community. I hope the government votes against the proposals both in Arboath and at Robslee, thus ensuring that the children’s education and wellbeing is the number one priority and not local council policies/politics.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The ERC roads department are very concerned about the traffic situation at Giffnock at the moment – that is before the traffic is doubled! They, not surprisingly, were not consulted about the Robslee proposal (which they are not happy about) – instead, an independent company was commissioned to provide a report.
The report was never released, however we obtained a copy.
In the Council’s final report, they say “Finally it is recommended that the Council undertake agreed improvements to traffic management, walking routes and transport;”
However, the independent report says (after a lengthy list of expensive traffic alterations): “Even with the provision of all these measures it is the opinion of JMP that significant traffic
congestion and parking problems would remain at the amalgamated Giffnock PS site.”
They Council claim that by removing 40 places from the Giffnock nursery, this will solve the traffic issue for the expected 130+ children from Robslee who would now have to drive instead of walk (and don’t forget, they are pre-judging the outcome of the required consultation on the nursery, which hasn’t even been proposed yet).
We just worry that this is the sort of statement they will use to try and get round the Government – empty promises which hide the reality.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0