The resignation of Sandy Longmuir, Chair of the Scottish Rural Schools Network (SRSN), from the Commission on the Delivery of Rural Education was announced today. It is evidently a decision agonised over for some time but driven finally by a complex of profound concerns.
Education Secretary, Michael Russell, said: ‘I very much regret Sandy’s decision. He has been a doughty fighter for rural schools and I regard him highly. I believe he had a crucial role in helping create a new policy through the Commission and it will be the poorer without his knowledge and input.
‘I remain utterly committed to ensuring the Commission does its vital work. The rural schools closure moratorium remains in place – a significant achievement – but the present legislation governs all other closures and must be observed . As Minister I , like all others , cannot flout the law.’
Mr Longmuir’s resignation is a particularly serious development for those involved in rural education and for those who have a professional interest in its nature and strengths.
It is so because the unchallengeable integrity, authority and independence of Mr Longmuir and of the Scottish Rural Education Network has been something of a miner’s canary in external readings of the honest health of the controversial commission.
Now the canary has gone belly up. This means that the credibility of the commission and of the Education Secretary who initiated it and agreed its composition, are at risk of combustion in public trust.
The structure and management of the commission
There are a range of factors that have driven the resignation from the commission of a man who is arguably its single most respected member, a fact recognised across Scotland. (SRSN were in the final shortlist of three for the 2011 Herald campaign of the Year award – for the Argyll schools campaign. They lost only to Moray’s campaign to save the RAF base at Lossiemouth.)
Most seriously for those who had trusted the commission to have the interests of rural education at heart, not to mention trusting an Education Secretary who has constantly pointed to the School’s Act 2010′s presumption against the closure of a rural school – Mr Longmuir has become fundamentally distrustful of the direction and management of the commission.
He sees an internal membership structure that is inherently unbalanced in potential impact.
On one side is the joint ‘owner’ of the commission, the trade union and lobby body for local authorities, COSLA – the Convention for Scottish Local Authorities.
Documents released under Freedom of Information legislation (attached below) demonstrate that:
- COSLA successfully achieved joint commission status in barter for COSLA leaders agreeing to observe the Moratorium on school closures that the Education Secretary had requested and indeed threatened to impose. It is always taken as a sign of weakness when someone in authority threatens and does not carry through. The document detailing this COSLA win, legitimately triumphalist in tone, is attached here. ( Doc-18 )
- The COSLA delegation on the commission is part of an internal COSLA Working Group liaising with members of local authorities not nominated by COSLA to membership of the commission (This includes Argyll and Bute.)
- This Working Group is served by paid officials who research, propose and administer.
- The Working Group has also adopted a set of internal objectives, attached here ( Doc-19 ) which radically demolish the principles supposed to underpin the Schools Act 2010, the way it governs due process and indeed seek to alter the very nature of that due process.
We advise all schools campaigners and all those interested to see how ‘government’ works behind the scenes to read, digest and reflect upon this document. It is clear how, with these objectives directing the conduct of the most powerful group on the commission – and its co-’owner’, Mr Longmuir did not feel that rural education was left anywhere other than open to predation.
A key issue shown here is the strategic determination of COSLA to see a reclassification of schools, with significantly fewer designated as rural. This would immediately remove such schools from the ‘shelter’ the Schools Act 2010 was intended to offer them.
What happened was this:
- The first meeting the COSLA group tried to get the reclassification of what is rural into the remit (as instructed by their Working Group)
- To his credit the Chair ruled that this was outside the remit of the Commission and moved on.
- Minutes of the meeting were produced where it was clear that the Commission had agreed not to revisit the classification of what was rural.
- These minutes were passed by the Commission as accurate.
- At a subsequent meeting the COSLA group stuck to the game plan from the Working Group and brought the issue up again.
- This time they flatly refused to take no for an answer.
- They were supported in this by the Scottish Government officials present. (We would ask why such officials, whose role is support, should have any involvement in such matters?)
- Mr Longmuir tried to say that this minute had already been agreed and that the commission should then move on.
- The Chair capitulated and allowed COSLA to follow their predetermined path.
Mr Longmuir remains deeply disturbed by the way the COSLA members on the commission were allowed to and did ensure that the reduction of schools designated as ‘rural’ remains on the table.
Beyond statistical data collection, there are only two meaningful impacts in being classed as a rural school:
- Rural schools with fewer than 70 pupils attract additional funding to the tune of £2,700 per pupil per annum for the Local Authority.
- Rural schools are afforded additional protection from closure under the Schools (Consultation) Act.
Why on earth would the Working Group be so insistent that a large number of schools be reclassified as not rural – to their member councils’ financial disbenefit? Could it possibly be that councils plan to close large numbers without the impediment of the new Act?
Readers of the attached downloadable documents above will see how COSLA describes ‘rural’ schools as ‘subjected’ to the provisions of the Schools Act 2010. These provisions are, of course, the very elements intended to offer protection to rural schools. It is doubtful that any will see themselves as having been ‘subjected’ to such provisions, however feeble they have turned out to be in what has been, at best, an erratic practice.
On the commission, beside this COSLA juggernaut, is a miscellany of disparate individuals, representing various organisations – a ‘group’ neither organised nor speaking with one voice because they do not have one.
Some of these individual members are actually against small schools and supportive of the manner in which local authorities have conducted community consultations on their closure proposals. This aggravates the imbalance within the comission membership.
Acts of bad faith
As well as the worry about the commission’s lack of structural integrity there are concerns with specific acts of bad faith, in terms of any true interest in protecting rural education.
The commission has been accepting ‘presentations’ from local authorities who are hosting its meetings.
We would firstly query the wisdom of having commission meetings hosted at all – since there is an endemic gratitude in the position of a guest which can adversely affect objective judgment on presentations and representations made in such circumstances.
All evidence givers should come to the commission as a matter of course and of best practice.
One such favoured host was Aberdeenshire Council, which presented a video, heavily edited to the point where some contributors who got access to it under FOI – under control conditions, are angry and upset.
Film and video are, by nature and construction the most manipulative of all media – which is why they are such powerful transmitters of promotional material and of dramatic fictions.
They can see and show only what the camera can capture – deliberately losing the wider context in which an action takes place and is received. They are edited to serve the single purpose of the editor or commissioning body. And they are structured and presented with a range of means to establish the weight of a single position.
Accepting positional representations is part of the collection of evidence and perspectives a commission should be doing – and ought be open to such representations from any competent and interested group.
And, as we have all known since Marshall McLuhan, ‘the medium is the message’.
For a commission on education – of all things – to be so ignorant of communication as even to consider accepting a video as a positional presentation beggars belief and trust in the commission’s competence and good faith.
We understand that the video in question appallingly traduced – with no counter evidence – the nature and capabilities of children at a school Aberdeen wishes to close. Worse, we understand that the Head Teacher of the school that would benefit from this closure was interviewed on camera and was vocal on this specific issue.
For the commission to accept as competent evidence the largely uninterrogated perspective of this video and to reject such interrogation as was attempted – by Mr Longmuir for one, is alone enough for anyone with integrity to set aside trust or interest in what it may eventually conclude.
The commission is now itself a dead parrott, alongside Mr Longmuir’s expired canary.
The critical difference between the two is, of course, that the dead parrott is the subject of enduring comedy where the dead canary signals a threat to the survival of those it warns.
The Education Secretary and the test of integrity
A decision is coming up shortly – in Angus – which will be the test of the personal integrity and authority of the Education Secretary, Michael Russell, constituency MSP for Argyll and Bute.
The Education Secretary – aka Education Ministers – is to pronounce on the future of Muirfield School in Arbroath.
The planned new school will be smaller and less well resourced for primary pupils’ overall educational experience than is Muirfield alone
It is to be built on a site with a long frontage to the busy undualled Arbroath ringroad, the Westway, with inadequate parking and drop off / pick up facilities, requiring many transferred children to make a long walk to school in dangerous traffic conditions.
There is no arguable educational benefit in the proposal – educational benefit being the final test of a competent closure proposal under the governing legislation which requires the most draconian conditions to be satisfied in this respect.
Having said that, a serious weakness in the law lies, as generally, in its observation.
To date neither local authorities nor the Education Secretary have paid much demonstrable attention to the precise requirements of the law – and, as a law unto themselves, they have set aside with impunity the obligations of the law in this respect.
When society and its citizens are taught to lose belief in the ability of the law to protect what it is reasonably assumed to protect and what it appears to say it will protect, it loses trust in the law. At that point, what’s left that’s worth bothering about?
This is where the Education Secretary, his junior ministers, his civil servants and the local authorities must stop short and consider.
They live in an unreal – infected – world where things do not mean what they say, are indeed designed to be so and can, at will, be interpreted with flexibility.
Honest citizens live in a world where they tend to do as Tony Benn famously advised: ‘Say what you mean. Mean what you say. And do it as soon as you get the opportunity’.
Everyone can live by that modus operandi – from themselves and others.
But the distance between the gaming world of the bureaucrat and the world of the more straightforward public is becoming dangerously stretched for a healthy politique.
The litmus test
We have researched extensively the case of Muirfield school – and published on it equally intensively – and we are used to decoding double-speak.
We have no hesitation of any kind in saying that there is no feasible argument to close this school. And its upgrading on its superb site would be far less expensive than building a new smaller and less well found school in what is indisputably a far more dangerous site.
So for us at least – and undoubtedly for very many more across Scotland, wherever rural education matters, the decision on Muirfield will be the litmus test for the integrity and values of the Education Secretary and of his authority over the department he runs.
And whatever the result of this litmus test is, there will be no way back from it.
If Muirfield School is reprieved from closure, it will be on solidly legitimate grounds and will signal that objective reason and evidence rule – as they must. That will be the greatest of reassurances in the light of the contrivance that is the commission on rural education.
If reasons are concocted to allow the school to be closed, it will signal that the worst of political pragmatism is in the driving seat, that reason and evidence are at an uneconomic discount and that integrity of any kind is absent from where we need it most – at the heart of government.
The usual ‘manoeuvering room’ tends to be the bland cover-all of ‘legal advice’.
There have already been bewildering decisions, after call-in, to allow schools to be closed for which the case advanced was manifestly unsustainable in terms of what any well informed reading of the law would indicate.
It is necessary, to support public trust in key decisions, for legal judgments to be made public. There is no defensible reason why they should not be free of the blanket of secrecy. For the law – above all things – to operate in secrecy is totally unacceptable and fully surreal. How can one keep within the law when one is not permitted to know what it is? This is getting in to Alice in Wonderland territory.
If legal judgments are open to challenge there is every reason in good law why they should face that challenge. If they are secure, their availability should be educational.
We therefore ask the Education Secretary, within the frame of these perspectives – to make public all the legal advice and the advice from government officers that he has received over Robslee and Uyeasound schools; and similarly makes public the current advices he has received in relation to Muirfield school.
Failure to publish this will inevitably be taken as proof that the decision making process is removed from objective logic and is subject to other constraints – which alone would account for a fear of disclosure.
Transparency on the basis of final judgments with such long-running educational, social and personal consequences is actually a moral issue.
It is about demonstrating good faith and earning trust. Such judgments impact upon the lives and chances of individuals and of communities.
The respected Mr Longmuir’s experience of the rural education commission, which has led to his departure from it, makes Muirfield the immediate test of an integrity now under challenge.
The position of the Argyll Rural Schools Network
Mr Longmuir’s departure from the commission calls into question the position of the Argyll Rural Schools Network, which also has a member on the commission.
The Scottish Rural Schools Network, the senior and experienced body, stood shoulder to shoulder with the Argyll Rural Schools Network when, newborn, it faced the weight and the deceptions of Argyll and Bute Council. SRSN put itself on the line for the Argyll schools. It did an Olympic sized heavy lifting on research, with the authority of its expert standing behind it.
It is inconceivable – with this history of support and mutual trust and and with the secret objectives of the COSLA membership, disclosed here – that ARSN would have any sustainable reason for not following Mr Longmuir in departing the discredited commission.
I can assure “Newsroom” that ARSN will not be bounced into any precipitous action until we have had a long hard think about things and how best we can serve the rural schools of Argyll in relation to the Commission.
We respect Sandy’s decision but we are not just going to march out until we have determined the relative values of staying in the Commission and leaving it.
Like or Dislike:
11 
1
For Dr Douglas Mackenzie: We assume that in saying this, you have not yet read the objectives adopted by the COSLA membership and downloadable from this article?
There is no way that one ARSN member could have any impact at all on the ruthless cohort from COSLA.
ARSN may, of course, see some validity in the COSLA commission members’ group objectives, which ARSN is entitled to do – although the schools it exists to support might find this hard to understand.
If ARSN is as worried about these objectives, as one would hope and expect it would be, it will want to do what it can to prevent these objectives being achieved.
The political reality is that one person representing an organisation with no clout in this body, has only one card to play that can achieve anything.
That is the principled withdrawal of participation, leaving whatever conclusions the commission eventually reaches shorn of the credibility of their association with them.
If the experienced Sandy Longmuir, representing a nationwide body with a heavyweight track record, cannot impact upon these circumstances, ARSN, as a brand new local body, should not lose sight of the reality of the size of its cosmic significance.
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
ARSN will make up its mind as to our continuing participation in the Commission in its own time.
As to the machinations of COSLA – there is nothing here that ARSN did not already know.
Like or Dislike:
9 
3
There is nothing in COSLA’s objectives that wasn’t implicit in their insistence on being part of the Commission. ARSN was aware of the working group prior to it actually meeting and it was an ARSN member who submitted the FOIs to obtain the details. There are absolutely no surprises there and the challenge is as it always was.
Like or Dislike:
11 
1
Glad that these documents have been brought to the public eye.
Must admit,most of cosla’s “suggestions” are not unexpected.They always were going to push against any possibility of losing control!
Reading through doc19,with SO much anti parents,families and communities made me MAD! But I grinned at the mention of Australia. Perhaps they are considering children staying at home and interacting with a far distant teacher!!!
That idea would indeed save money……though internet access across rural Scotland could be a sticking point!
It’s gratifying, that cosla have the future of our childrens’ education close to their hearts……..and that someone else is watching them!
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
Note Morton and Sneddon’s names on the circulation list of document 19. How long before we see them embarked on the “fact-finding” tour of Australia to research educational practices there, all at public expense of course?
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
Dr McKenzie is quite right – never leave the field to the opposition. At the worst the flaws and the falseness of their manoeuvres must be mmade apparent to the voters. And they will have the opportunity of putting in a minority report if necessary.
As for Michael Russell I have no doubt that he will stand his ground on this and be supported by his colleagues and MSPs. To do other would be for him to overturn the clear and principled position on rural schools and their critical importance held by, and expounded by, the SNP over many years. The Libdems have shown what happens when they abandon a matter of principle (on student fees). Even if the Party was willing to follow their practice, which I cannot believe, Michael Russell will not.
Like or Dislike:
8 
4
So stand in the battlefield against overwhelming numbers and get slaughtered all ends up? Great tactics, were you a WW1 general by any chance? In my case I asked the general if reinforcements or a master battle plan were coming and if so I would have fought on but in true WW1 style I was told to make do with what I had. When outnumbered and outmanoeuvred it makes sense to regroup and try a flanking operation rather than have your name added to the list of the fallen. Not leaving the battlefield just resorting to tactics I am better suited to.
Oh yeah, and a minority report from one member of a Commission? I have seen them win the day on so many occasions I cannot think what example to pick first. Are you sure you are not a WW1 general?
Like or Dislike:
12 
0
Gerry: I think you are reading just a bit more into my posts than I was intending! All I was saying was that the only change in the situation is that Sandy has resigned. This requires us (ARSN) to review our position viz a viz the Commission. But as CSB says, ARSN is a group organisation and we make collective decisions. Once we have made that decision we will let people know what it is and why we have reached it. But we won’t be bounced into it by comment on FA.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
For Gerry Fisher: ‘Never leave the field to the opposition’?
So your position is that the SNP should have played a full part in the Calman Commission, initiated by the unionist parties as a political obstruction to the SNP?
And you do not feel that their deliberate absence from it left it devoid of credibility?
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
There are a couple of things that need to be stated about this.
ARSN are not a one-man (or woman) band. We are a group and as such, make our decisions by concensus, so ARSN’s position on this won’t be given here as a comment by an individual.
COSLA’s and the LA’s position on this is not news to us at all. For goodness sake, Morton and Sneddon are on the working group – its a bit of a no-brainer. The docs provided there are just further evidence of the attitude that we have seen so far and indeed a good part of why we were formed and continue to exist.
Lastly, for Sandy Longmuir, I am sure this was an extremely tough decision and is still someone I hold in the highest respect and at the end of the day, SRSN and ARSN are still fighting for the same cause – retention of rural schools. That hasn’t changed.
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
2
This is a worrying development in this saga. I have not had time to read up on this but will do.
How is Rural defined now ?
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
First and foremost it must be said that Sandy, Justin and the rest of SRSN are, and always will be, held in the highest esteem by many families across Argyll & Bute. Their dedication to protecting good schools, and focusing on the fundamental issue of quality of education, over a period of years and for schools the length and breadth of the country is unrivalled by any politician or ‘punter’.
I wouldn’t claim to know Sandy particularly well, we have shared a fair few e-mails, a few phone calls and tried to put the right the ills of the world one evening in an Aberdeen pub (I recall being more interested in his farm robots though) but what I do know is he is someone who is unwavering in purpose and resolve in relation to the management of schools. He is also free of political persuasion on the matter which furthers the need to sit up and take notice when he makes decision as fundamental as this one.
This, as has been said already, is exactly what ARSN will do. I think it is safe to say there was a degree of shock amongst the ARSN troops when Sandy communicated his decision to us however as a group we have the utmost respect for him and therefore for the decisions he takes. Of course CSB and the Doc are correct that we will take a decision as a group and it will be a decision based on what we think is sound judgement (whether it is or not is another matter – that CSB is a wild card!!) and it will not be one we take lightly or that we rush into. Other than a series of e-mails we have not had the time to properly consider our position (remember we are scattered across A&B) and we are firmly of the opinion that this is an issue that required proper face to face discussion rather than chains of e-mails.
So in terms of ARSN I will not, in fact can not, offer a view on Sandy’s decision. However personally I can and it is the view that I have already expressed to Sandy. I fully understand why he took this decision and, from what I know of him, I believe it was entirely the correct course of action for him to take (by this I mean for him as an individual – this is not me expressing an opinion on what ARSN should do).
What would be entirely wrong is for anyone to criticise Sandy for his decision as only he fully understands why it was the right one for him to take and his track record and dedication over the years has earned him the right to take it and have it respected. What will also be wrong, should it occur, would be for anyone to try and make out there is a fall out between ARSN and SRSN (irrespective of what we decide to do). CSB is entirely correct that we are both fighting for the same cause and this shared objective is far more important to all of us than any potential disagreement over the best way of achieving it.
I would like to publicly thank Sandy, and the rest of SRSN, for all they have done to help us so far and I know for sure we will work together in some shape or form again in future.
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
Regardless of what people think about closing/retaining rural schools I am absolutely astounded that Newsie might be so naive as to be surprised that the people in COSLA organised a working group around their representatives on the Commission.Obviously they would do this in order to ensure that the views of interested Councils were heard and that where possible a group consensus was achieved and put forward. That after all is onne of the main purpooses of COSLA – to represent the interests of its (Council) members.
With that in mind I have to say that this article exceeds even Newsie’s normal biased writing. And what a lot of targets as well – If it’s not “the ruthless cohort from COSLA.”, it’s testing the “integrity and authority” of Mike Russell as well as telling ARSN (quite literally) where to get off – and coming across as belittling them into the bargain. “If the experienced Sandy Longmuir, representing a nationwide body with a heavyweight track record, cannot impact upon these circumstances, ARSN, as a brand new local body, should not lose sight of the reality of the size of its cosmic significance”.
Looks like Newsie is losing it.
Like or Dislike:
4 
7
ARSN are in no doubt about the crucial and decisive importance of SRSN in seeing off the Council’s original proposals. We will always be grateful for the expertise that Sandy and Justin brought to the process at a time when the schools campaign in Argyll had more enthusiasm than expertise. The analysis of GAE that SRSN produced was devastating to the Council case and was not something that ARSN would ever have been able to develop on its own.
As several ARSN worthies have now said, we will make up our own minds about how best to engage with the Commission in the light of SRSN’s withdrawal from the Commission’s membership. As has also been stressed, there is no fundamental “split” between ARSN and SRSN. We did not know of Sandy’s decision before yesterday and I am unaware of any discussion between the two organisations along the lines that ARSN should join SRSN in not participating in the Commission.
As we have also indicated, ARSN were well aware that COSLA had an agenda in regard to the Commission and they are resourcing this. No real difference to our local situation in Argyll where numerous and expensive QIO/QIMs were tasked with writing and pursuing proposals, backed up by senior management and councillors. They spent an enormous amount of time and (our) money but to no avail. They lost. Sometimes God is not on the side of the big battalions. the biggest asset that rural schools have is the universal and cross party support they have within the Scottish Parliament. Regardless of what the Commission reports, it will be up to the Government to propose new legislation and while they will take cognisance of the Commission they are not bound to act on any of its recommendations. I don’t see the Government or the Parliament withdrawing an inch from the current support for rural schools.
COSLA has an agenda but its members are not necessarily dancing to COSLA’s tune. Reports from yesterday’s meeting suggest that Highland at least has pinned its colours very firmly to the mast of protecting rural schools. Given their stated stance ahead of the Commission we would expect Borders and Dumfries and Galloway to have a similar tact.
So the view of the Commission as a bunch of disparate, well intended individuals hopelessly fighting against the juggernaut that is COSLA is simplistic.
One criticism that appears justified is the suggestion that the Commission was set up as a stop gap solution to a problem without enough thought given to what the desired result of the Commission’s deliberations should be. This has allowed COSLA to attempt to hijack its direction.
The question for ARSN is whether we stand a better chance of derailing that agenda as a member of the Commission or by withdrawing from it. Whatever ARSN do, SRSN have already given themselves the ability to distance themselves from any outcome that they don’t like. If ARSN were to “walk”, would the Commission fold? I would think not. If ARSN “walks” would this increase the impact of SRSN’s withdrawal? If we “walk” do we increase or decrease our political influence and goodwill?
These are not simple considerations and the path is not as obvious as Newsroom suggests. Whatever we decide it will be what we believe to be in the best interest of Argyll’s schools.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
Doc, great points but I think you want to insert a ‘no’ into your first sentence, between ‘in’ and ‘doubt’, just to avoid confusion! (At least I’m assuming you do, hope I’m correct!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks Alison! Edited now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
DDM:
You write: “… the Commission was set up … without enough thought given to what the desired result of the Commission’s deliberations should be”.
Sorry to quibble:
Ought the desired result to have been known / decided before the Commission was set up? (Surely not, but not unimaginable.)
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Commission deliberations are, quite reasonably, kept within the commission until it reaches its conclusions. What I can say is that part of its remit is to produce conclusions which are evidence based and submissions to the commission will form a substantial part of that evidence.
For those who have not already done so, please take the opportunity to submit your views via
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/About/CommissionRuralEducation/CallForEvidence
Whether ARSN remains in the Commission or not, it is, as in the battle of Bannockburn, the “small folk” and their efforts that have the power to win the day. The call for evidence closes on 12 January to allow analysis of the submissions so the sooner the better.
Like or Dislike:
8 
2
Mmmm … now why would anyone dislike people having their say?
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
Oh no Anne! I have this inspirational picture of that Braveheart scene where all the Scots turn and lift their kilts and flash their bums at the English horde – except my mental picture has ARSN members showing a bare-faced cheek!
Thank you, that’ll be another sleepless night ahead! LOL
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
Having now had the chance to read Doc19 above – I have to say it seems to me to be a most reasonable document that highlights areas of contention that require guidance and clarification. And that’s surely in everyones’ interest.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
Document 19 is a mixed bag for me but (as I conclude) overall highlights COSLA’s desire to make school closures easier. Some of COSLA’s working groups thoughts are fair and appropriate. Examples being:
1. Better use of Education Scotland in the creation of the Educational Benefit Statement
2. More structured approach to assessing viable alternatives although that they want the commission to look at the challenges for local authorities to convince people that all viable alternatives have been explored – in the case of A&B they just didn’t explore them (as proven by FOI responses) – somehow I doubt Cllr Morton brought that to the attention of the working group
3. More clarity over assessment of travel impact. Another area where A&B’s approach was riddled with errors and where a swift moving of the goalpost by Cllr Morton was designed to make it easier for the Council to ignore travel impact.
4. Better guidance and transparency over the call-in procedure
5. Standardising capacity calculations (although it should be noted that capacity is not all that relevant an issue)
6. Given proper consideration to the impact of integrated nursery/primary/wrap around care service (again lets not forget A&B ignored this totally when it was to their advantage to).
And then we have the darker side with that being
7. Trying to redefine the definition of rural schools so it becomes easier for them to close them. Lets not forget that they had no problem with this definition when it resulted in additional GAE payments
but now that it isn’t in their interest they cry foul.
8. Making out that communities are wrong to expect unique research and reports on community impact for every proposal. Granted there will be some generic arguments which can be based on generic research but any claim, for example, that the closure of say Luss Primary would have exactly the same community impact as, say the closure of Minard is a preposterous. If the Council claim it is too expensive to perform a community impact then that, in itself, suggests closing the school isn’t going to save them much!
9. Getting the hump because the current process results in micro-scrutiny of consultation, documents and proposals. I am sure the group would love to be able to rush through proposals without being accountable for the quality of the approach they have adopted but the lesson here is not to make such an appalling job of it rather than moaning about being expected to do a good job! Local Authorities do love to treat public consultation as a tick box exercise rather than actually engaging adequately.
10. The old ‘equality of provision’ argument which is what they are getting at in the ‘prominence given to financial issues’ bullet point and then again later when they make specific reference to unit costs. That classic chestnut brought up time and time again by town focused councillors who want to convince unaffected residents that rural folk are spoiled and bleeding the public purse dry. When every village has a leisure centre, town hall, well maintained parks, easy access to public transportation, secondary school, social work buildings, relatively decent roads, a library, refuse disposal etc etc etc then come back with an argument about equality of provision. Until that time the cost per pupil or unit discussion is ridiculous.
11. Specific reference to small schools struggling to deliver CfE despite there being clear evidence of small schools delivering it superbly. If a Council is struggling to do it in a small school then they should look to see what they are doing wrong as size of school is clearly not a limiting factor.
12. Talk of differing evidence regarding the educational benefit of a small rural school, the conflict it causes and a breakdown of trust. In the case of A&B this isn’t reflective of the truth. A&B didn’t provide differing evidence – they didn’t provide any evidence whatsoever!
13. You have to say that the statement that ‘the quality of a child’s education must be at the heart of the decision making process’ in an honourable one however saying is one thing, doing is another. Notice they quickly follow that up by saying that communities overlook this as they prioritise sustainability over quality education. No mention of council’s prioritising financial gain over quality of education. Minard and Clachan spring instantly to mind.
14. Notice the groups desire to challenge placement requests into rural schools however apparently no problem regarding placement requests out of them into non rural schools – funny that.
Overall the document reads to me that the group are looking for more clarity and guidance over the process and also looking for changes which will make it easier for them to close rural schools. The net result being that the process becomes easier for them AND there is reduced risk of call in. It is pretty much what we expected from COSLA.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Agree totally, as per usual, with Integrity’s analysis although he left out the push to have children who attend small rural schools labelled socially dysfunctional – something which the research simply does not support.
Something which has been missed out in all of this is that at the very first Commission meeting every member was asked to agree that they left their organisational affiliations at the door of the Commission room. Everyone agreed they were there as individuals and would not be carrying corporate baggage into the Commission. It would appear that one group in particular were not exactly wholehearted in giving that commitment.
In meeting 1 they tried to get the number one item on the working group’s list adopted – reclassification of rural schools. When thwarted in this by the chair (and that minuted) they wasted no time at the second meeting in getting it back on. At the second meeting Aberdeenshire conveniently brought up another of the boxes to be ticked and introduced the social dysfunction argument promising to back it up with data which has never been forthcoming. At the third meeting they tried to introduce the placing request argument just as Integrity outlines above. There is absolutely no doubt that the Cosla working group intend to have their members work through the list one tick box at a time. If they continue to not take no for answer on each point and the chair acquiesce as he did with the rural classification then it is fairly obvious where this will go. So much for arriving at the Commission as individuals with no organisational baggage.
As a member of the Commission I was prevented from saying any of this and my hope is that my resignation will change the direction the Commission will take and stop all of this nonsense. I intend to do everything I can from outside to hold it to account.
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
0
Sandy – If an agreed term of reference of the group was clearly breached, why did the chairman not intervene immediately and castigate the appropriate members responsible?
It sounds like it’s turned in to a bit of a sham really. It goes completely against the spirit of what the group was intended for.
Yes certain individuals will snort and say ‘what else did you expect!’. I would suggest a bit of respect and honesty amongst the members would of been a start.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Robert, The big mistake was trading off the Commission for the moratorium. I said this at the time and debated this with Integrity when I was first asked to join because I very much trust his judgement. I also communicated my concerns to the Cabinet Secretary.
Had the Commission been Government owned with individual appointees from Local Authorities then none of this would have happened. Cosla have always had an extreme viewpoint on rural schools when compared with their membership. You only have to look at their consultation response to the Bill which preceded the Act and compare it with the responses of the 26 Local Authorities who made their own submissions. Only two of them came close to having the extreme views of Cosla. It will probably not surprise you to know those two Councils were Angus and Argyll.
Cosla’s views were such that the Education Committee decided against calling them for oral evidence on the Bill. Boy were they miffed.
When we were working with Peter Peacock and making progress with him Cosla launched a personal attack on me through the Education Committee accusing me of lying to Parliament and feeding them “erroneous” information. The nature of the document that caused them so much angst? It was a copy of their own minutes! Once I demonstrated that it was their own words they were describing as “erroneous” they then said I was selective in my use of the minutes. I was able to then demonstrate that I had copied all Committee members the full minutes in question. Fiona Hyslop was in opposition at the time and she chewed them up and spat them out in good style. When she tried the same as Cabinet Secretary she lost her job. It is a crying shame for Scotland that an unelected, unrepresentative and publicly unaccountable body is allowed to have this type of power.
Your certain individuals are 100% correct when they say “what else do you expect?”. Scotland should expect better.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
‘…Aberdeenshire… introduced the social disfunction argument…’ Now would that be the same Aberdeenshire that not long ago showed us their definition of integrity by jumping into bed with Trump?
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Today’s Herald has a front page mention, page 5 article and editorial comment on this.
What possible reason could there be for COSLA wishing to get large numbers of schools removed from rural classification if not to make it easier for LAs to close them?
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Can’t find the article online. Is it there? am I just not seeing it?
If not, whats the jist?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Crazy, Regret I still read paper copies of newspapers. The article quotes Sandy asking the question I included in my last post and stresses the importance of rural schools to rural communities. The Editorial is headlined ” Importance of rural schools risks being neglected”
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Thanks HB, will see if I can get a copy from a friend.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
CSB: Herald online is usually updated at 12.00 if you don’t want to buy (or beg, borrow or steal) a copy.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/education/schools-campaigner-quits-inquiry-over-closures-row-1.1137784
For those that don’t get the Herald
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
So very sorry to learn of Sandy Longmuir’s resignation. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Sandy for his fight against rural school closure and other schools closing.
I especially thank him for his coverage in “ForArgyll” of the proposed merger of Muirfield and Timmergreens Primary Schools in Arbroath and the plans to build a new “super sized” school on an unsuitable site.
I hope the fight to save good existing schools will continue.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Concerned, I think we’ll find that Sandy’s resignation from the Commission is in no way suggesting he’s retiring from the fight to save schools!
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
Who is the chairman of the commission?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
From a very interested bystander is the commision a sham.
The education of our kids should be taken completely out of the hands of the political puppets of any persuasion and handed into the control of people like Mr.Longmuir who seems to have there best interests at heart wether rural or
town.
I am sure he is no saint but I think he would make an excellent Education Secretary with no political baggage.
Like or Dislike:
8 
2
Robert Wakeham – I thought you were the one that deplored people trying to score cheap political points?? How would you describe your comment on Aberdeen? “would that be the same Aberdeenshire that not long ago showed us their definition of integrity by jumping into bed with Trump?” Is that not a political statement? Trying to score a cheap point there were you Robert. Or is it only’political’ when someone else does it?
And of course you should also remember that Aberdeen Councillors originally rejected Donald Trump’s plans. But who rode to Trump’s rescue? None other than the SNP leader Alex Salmond who jumped into bed with Trump big style.I seem to remember Salmond used the phrase at the time “we have to keep Scotland open for business”.
Further reading for you on this Salmond Trump affair can be found below Robert.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/dec/05/usa.scotland
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
Dynamite Simon! Over to you Robert.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
It’s about a group of people who were elected, in this case by the folk of the county of Aberdeen, to govern them and represent their interests, but who I think reinterpreted those interests in the face of a large, noisy and seemingly influential property developer with powerful friends in high places (even sacking the chair of the planning committee on his behalf). It seems they’ve now taken to reinterpreting the justification for rural education, and if – in criticising this – you feel that I’ve stepped into your territory, Simon, I can only apologise, and hope that you’re not too upset. If it is a political point, there’s nothing cheap about it – take a walk down the coast from Newburgh and have a look at the Balmedie SSSI.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Robert, apology accepted and I’m not upset at all (do you see the grief I normally get on here??). I’d just hate Alex Salmond not to get the credit he deserved for bringing Trump to Scotland and over the wishes of so many locals.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
Good to see Sandy Longmuir headlined on The Herald website today.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
It is very sad to hear of Sandy Longmuir’s resignation. He and his team have been very supportive over our school closure on Harris. I am appalled at the definition that the commission are trying to label rural school children as “dysfunctional”. This is a pathetic and desperate attempt to close schools. My children are not dysfunctional and I know of many others who have attended rural schools who are certainly not dysfuntional. Another pathetic attempt to undermine parents and rural communities.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0