For Argyll has extensively covered the situation in Angus where the Cabinet Secretary’s decision on the future of Muirfield and Timmergreens Primary Schools is eagerly awaited.
Angus Council want to demolish the two schools and build a new £8million 500 pupil superschool by the side of a dangerous bypass. Much of the information used to support the arguments for closure has been questioned by parents of both schools. All available evidence shows that the vast majority of the public in the town are now against the proposal.
The slow reveal on manipulation of condition survey scores
New developments have occurred in the past few days which cast further light into the murky corners of what passes for a public consultation in Angus. Both of the elements concerned involve the condition rating given to Muirfield Primary ahead of the public consultation; and both result from Freedom of Information requests made by the Muirfield Action Group.
Every school in Scotland is graded for condition under a national set of guidelines issued by the Scottish Government. These were issued in order to achieve a consistency of reporting across Scotland. Each school has been given a grade which is monitored by suitably qualified professional, on an annual basis, with full surveys taking place at least every 5 years. Once assessed the schools are ranked as follows.
A . Good
B Satisfactory
C Poor
D Bad
Since the first School Estate Management Plans (SEMPs) were made a requirement by the Scottish Executive in 2005, both Muirfield and Timmergreens have been condition graded as B-Satisfactory.
When the informal consultation on the current proposals began, both schools were still graded B and the early consultation papers clearly show this.
Both schools underwent their 5 year full inspection in spring 2009. The result of these inspections were that Timmergreens remained at B and Muirfield was downgraded to a C – Poor.
Throughout the consultations, councillors and the public alike were regularly reminded that Muirfield was the worst condition school in Arbroath and therefore the reasonable first choice for a new-build.
Parents at Muirfield made contact with parents at other schools in the burgh and it soon became clear that other schools had serious problems which were not manifesting themselves at Muirfield.
The Muirfield Action group therefore requested, under FOI, all survey reports for the various schools.
On receipt of the information it transpired that the surveyor had been instructed NOT to inspect the mechanical and electrical services at Muirfield. This resulted in two missing pages in the manually recorded grading sheets as completed by the inspecting surveyor. All other sections were made available.
The Muirfield Action Group (MAG) requested advice from the Scottish Rural Schools Network (SRSN), which had some experience of the grading system and MAG supplied them with all the data sheets.
SRSN inputted all the data – some 107 individual assessments – into a model of the Government guidance which is designed to calculate an overall grade. This grade should then stand comparison with any school in Scotland.
In the Muirfield data sheets there were 9 As, 83 Bs and 15 Cs. Although several hundred elements can be inspected, not all are given the same ranking of importance. Things such as internal doors and decoration are given a low weighting, with structural items such a walls, windows and the roof structure given understandably high weightings.
In the absence of the heating grades, SRSN attributed this the lowest possible score of a D and then calculated the weightings using the standard model.
Even with the heating graded at a D, the model returned Muirfield as a B – Satisfactory and not the C – Poor as listed in the consultation papers.
It was clear that the detailed inspection scores attributed to a qualified surveyor were neither reflected in the scores shown in the consultation papers nor in the returns made to the Scottish Government.
How it was done
Further documents obtained under FOI were the actual computer printouts that education officials had created using the surveyor’s condition scores. These indeed did show that the heating had been graded a D but there was no supporting documentation showing who had conducted the inspection of this element or when.
Even more disturbing was the revelation that one of the highly weighted elements entered into the computer was not given the same grade as assessed by the inspecting surveyor. The curtain walling at Muirfield had been altered from a B to a C. This, along with the grading of the heating as a D, meant that two of the heaviest weighted elements had been classed as sub-standard.
Muirfied Action Group requested the missing survey sheets for the heating and also requested information on who had altered the surveyor’s scores – and why?
Angus Council did not supply this information and upon appeal to the Information Commissioner, an investigation was launched.
The Information Commission investigation and report
This involved an investigating officer from the Information Commission visiting Angus Council to inspect the records and computer systems. Her draft report, issued in the last few weeks, concluded that no records existed for the heating survey and no records existed detailing why the surveyor’s condition scores had been altered.
SRSN supplied two items at this stage:
- The guidance from the Scottish Government which clearly states that an auditable record of any condition score changes should be kept and that this should include the names and roles of the individuals responsible.
- A document written by the same surveyor in 2008 where he complains bitterly about his grading of a good B being changed by education officials against government guidance ahead of a closure consultation on a rural school. It is clear he considers that this grading change may be used to advance the case for closure – as indeed it was. The individual who altered the scores in this case is the same individual in charge of inputting the scores for Muirfield to the computer database.
The investigating officer returned to Angus Council armed with this information asking for the auditable records of the changes. The Information Commissioner’s investigation closed today (15/12/11) and concludes with the following postscript.
‘After completing the above report and receiving your comments, I asked the Council again about the lack of information that would show reasons for the altered scoring grades. I drew attention to the guidance on the Scottish Government website and in particular, the part that says:
‘Documented Process
’1. Local authorities should have a stated system setting out their process for assigning condition categories to schools. In addition, an auditable record of that process and its results should be maintained. As a minimum, this should reference the process used and document the sources of input data, the names and roles of the participants, the dates over which the condition review activities took place, and the condition categories assigned to each of the major elements and to the school as a whole. The record should also note any amendments made to the overall school condition rating arrived at by the standard process.
‘I asked whether the information about the grading process for condition categories is ‘auditable’ if no information is recorded that would show why some grades were altered during the process.
‘The Council replied on 13 December ………. The Council takes the view that the changes to the scoring grades are “auditable” but did not provide any detailed reasons why this would be the case.’
‘What a tangled web we weave…’
The Council refuse to give any more detail or to supply a written explanation by the officer concerned as to why he changed the condition scores. All the Council will say is “…this could be the result of the officer responsible for all School Estate Management Plans having reflected on the raw information provided by the Surveyor who carried out the initial survey and decided to revise it when updating the electronic version of the spreadsheet to ensure a consistent approach is adopted across the entire school estate’.
Note ‘…this could be’ – most certainly not a definitive explanation and all the more remarkable when you examine further the claimed ‘consistency’.
The same surveyor inspected Muirfield and Timmergreens a matter of weeks apart and gave his professional opinion of the curtain walling at both schools. He graded Timmergreens as a C – Poor and Muirfield as a B – Satisfactory. It is clear that, in his professional opinion, the two schools have walls in different condition.
Exactly how ‘consistent’ is it for a non-qualified individual at a computer some 15 miles away to override the decision of a qualified professional on site?
Further reports are available on the school estate in Arbroath which make it clear that Muirfield is more suitable for education and in better condition than some other schools in the burgh.
Add to these the recent history of the heating systems in these schools and it can be seen that schools with a higher condition rating than Muirfield have heating systems which fail on a regular basis while Muirfield remains trouble free.
One school, Wardykes, has had over £12K ospent n maintenance of its heating system in the last few winters. This appears to be due to systematic failure of the underfloor heating system with each room being fitted with storage radiators in turn. Muirfield’s heating maintenance bill averages around £600 per annum.
Failure to comply with statutory guidelines
In summary we have a school proposed for closure as ‘…the worst school in Arbroath’, recently downgraded to a C – Poor but with surveyors reports which grade it as a good B – satisfactory. These gradings have been altered on entry into the Council’s computer system with no explanation as to why.
Scottish Government Guidance states that the reasons for any change should be listed .
The Information Commissioner has established that this guidance has not been followed and failed to get any reasonable explanation as to why major elements have been downgraded.
Many other strands of evidence point to the school being in better condition than other schools in Arbroath.
Councillors voted to close this school on the basis of information provided to them. The school being in very ‘poor’ condition simply must have been a major consideration in any vote.
The Cabinet Secretary, Argyll’s MSP, Michael Russell, now holds the fate of Muirfield school in his hands.
The final decision on the call in of the Council’s decision by Ministers is expected soon.
The Schools (Consultation) Act 2010 makes provision for call in and refusal on the grounds of a ‘material consideration’ affecting the consultation.
It is difficult to think of a material consideration that would have a greater impact than elected members and the public being given information on the condition of a school which cannot be supported by the Council’s own documentation. At the very least this consultation should be thrown out and the Council told to start again with accurate and verifiable information.
As documented elsewhere on For Argyll, this is not the only consideration the Cabinet Secretary has to contend with.
- The Council’s own solicitor denied that a group of statutory consultees were even entitled to be consulted.
- A road safety report by the Council’s own road safety expert showed that the chosen school site was considered dangerous but this did not come into the public domain until after the consultation ended,
- Consultees were told by Councillors and education officials that the capital budget could not be used for refurbishment of schools and could only be used for a new build – something some still believe to this day.
- All of this without even the fraudulent survey which was used to advance the project where the vast majority of the responses were proven to come from the same computer.
The rule of law?
Failure to refuse closure under these terms will signal the end of the Schools (Consultation) Act 2010 as a credible piece of legislation.
In its passage into law it was absolutely clear that the Act was intended by Parliament to end just this type of consultation practice.
Similar examples, some from Angus Council, were used in the evidence stages of the Bill and it was the clear will of Parliament that a halt was called. The Act was passed by unanimous cross-party agreement.
A number of decisions have brought the will of the Scottish Government and Councils into conflict with the will of the Parliament in the passing of the Act.
The wrong decision here will be the death knell of the legislation.
Sandy Longmuir, Chair, Scottish Rural Schools Network
Relevant documents
- Information Commission report: Mr Ewan Smith and Angus Council-2
- Muirfield Surveyor’s internal meeting notes on changes to his condition ratings: EdThomson-1
Footnote: Precedent for Angus Council’s modus operandi on changing condition survey ratings
Eassie Primary School is the rural school which had its condition downgraded from a good B to a C ahead of the closure consultation in 2008.
At the consultation meeting Councillor Peter Nield pledged that if the school remained open investment would be made by the Council to rectify the perceived building problems. The school did remain open, despite the best efforts of Councillor Nield, and 3 years later nothing has been seen of the promised major investment in the fabric of the school. All the more remarkable then that in reporting to the Scottish Government Eassie is once again graded as a B.
In regards to the Arbroath Schools Project, the original intention was to apply for funding from the Scottish Futures Trust. It was made clear by the Scottish Government that priority of funding would be given to bringing the poorest schools in Scotland up to standard. Given the number of C and D listed schools remaining in Scotland, it was clear funds would be directed to these first.
At the time of this announcement, all schools in Arbroath were graded BB for condition and suitability. Now only one of the 7 schools in Arbroath meets the BB grade. There is much speculation about what caused the simultaneous and swift deterioration in the suitability of Arbroath schools to deliver education.
SL
MAG are to be applauded for their persistence in this matter. It is easy to get defeated by the sheer exasperation of dealing with a Council that hides relevant information and discloses only that which supports its desires (as we know well in A&B).
Mike Russell has a clear duty to reject this closure and Angus Council should be made to answer to charges of, at best, negligence and at worst… well I think that is pretty apparent.
Like or Dislike:
10 
0
Excellent article Sandy that perfectly sums up the eight months spent on trying to piece this jigsaw together.
Many of the pieces are still missing – presumably in the Angus Council shredder as ‘all handwritten notes were destroyed’ (AC) – but this is the thing that has caused us most alarm in the entire proposal.
I can remember the gasps of disbelief from some Muirfield parents when it was announced at a public meeting that our school was in the worst condition of all schools in the town. Councillor Peter Nield even highlighted this in his presentation, pointing out the dire need for immediate action as some buildings had deteriorated significantly since their last inspection.
I can absolutely guarantee that Muirfield is NOT in a worse state than any other school. The ‘faulty heating’ for one thing is a complete fallacy and you don’t have to be an expert to grade that – it works well or it doesn’t. I also have my reservations over Timmergreens, especially after noting some of the areas that had their grading altered.
The call-in team have had the surveyor reports since a couple of days into the call-in request period. We pointed out gradings had been altered in our call-in request. We also made it clear that this had been put to the information commission after all other avenues had been exhausted. There were detailed files on the surveyor, Ed Thomson’s, first ten page assessment – photos, notes etc. This proved without doubt that he carried out the assessment he was asked to do.
When the final two pages of the Muirfield survey arrived it came as a computer print out – with no other notes. We asked for these notes, but were
told they had been ‘destroyed’.
No-one pointed out that alterations had been made to gradings and now there is no recorded tangible reason why. Are we just going to let this pass without notice?
Surely a simple and effective solution would be for the Scottish Govt to carry out it’s own building assessments of these schools. That would eliminate any doubt.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
For Ewan Smith: We assume that the Muirfield Action Group have updated the call-in team as necessary over the past four and a half months? A serious injustice in the act is that a council can have access to the call-in team during this process to make their case and clarify issues, but a parent group cannot.
This built in inequality is an issue we assume the Commission will want to address – because it affects all schools and not just rural ones.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Newsie – The call-in team had our concerns first cited to them during the ‘three-week’ representation period. We noted at that point that several FOIs had been pushed to the Information Commissioner.
Because of that I can see no legal reason why this cannot be acted on by the Education Secretary or the call-in team. They have all the documents in their possession (well all of those that exist or haven’t been through the Angus Council shredder).
An easy way to get an outcome here would be to inspect the schools again. If the Scottish Govt appointed their own independent surveyor to work to strict Govt Guidelines then there would be no dubiety over the gradings. This still, however, does not excuse the fact that there is no supporting evidence from Angus Council to back up their assertions that Muirfield is a C/C and Timmergreens is a B/C.
We still await the release of one FOI – all notes made by HMIE during inspection – and this is in the system with the Information Commission. Again, this in an FOI that was made long before a decision was confirmed on the school.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
An excellent point Newsroom. You will recall during tha A&B debacle that key Council officers, when responding to Sandy’s excellent work highlighting errors/misleading information in the proposal papers, briefed the members (and provided a presentation) but chose not to invite Sandy to that session or give him the right of reply.
We were fortunate enough to gain access to the presentation provided by Cleland Sneddon that day but not through council transparency.
Such an approach should not be adopted by the call-in procedure as it leaves the process wide open to the sort of manipulation and provision of misleading information which has been prominent in both A&B and Angus.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
There we have the “out” clause. Now Mike, time to be Santa and give the good people of Arbroath the best Christmas present ever.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Again I find myself commenting on a subject that quite clearly shows that if there was a case for calling in a school decision this would be one. It is quite clear that Angus Council have made mistakes during this whole process and surely now is time for them to take the process seriously and do what they have being accusing parents of not doing and put the welfare of our children at the forefront of the whole schools consultation project.
As far as Timmergreens Primary school goes I do not deny it needs upgrading, but can assure you that the building if it had been maintained properly in the first place it would not need so much spent on it to get it to the required level to last for the next 30 years.
I know it goes without saying but it is not about time a bit of commonsense was applied to this whole farse.
I also have to agree with Ewan as to the fact that neither of these schools are the worst when you hear some of the stories from other parents with children at Arbroath schools.
I feel it would also be appropriate to ask Angus Councils education department where are they going to put all these children that will be moving into the new houses to be built on Montrose Road or is it more a case of they will fill this new super school by busing children from this area of the town.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
Good point about the new houses and space, I noticed in the new roll info Warddykes is still classed as being able to hold the same amount of children as it was last year despite practically a whole corridor taken up by the new ‘base’ Maybe they plan to bring back the portacabins. :\
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
“Failure to refuse closure under these terms will signal the end of the Schools (Consultation) Act 2010 as a credible piece of legislation.”
Does anyone really still consider it a credible piece of legislation?! Clearly not the Cab Sec or any parents who have been involved in its machinations!
Robslee was graded the same as Giffnock – however improvements have been made since the grading, eg brand new double glazing, new gym hall.
We got to visit Giffnock last week – if that is a B, I can’t imagine anything less has a roof. Tiny cramped classrooms, peeling paint, dark gloomy rooms, gym with no windows. The gym also doubles as the dining hall – it has one entrance in and out, and one small fire exit that exits into the school. Apparently the fire escape is being enlarged, which must mean that the council acknowledge it is dangerous at the moment.
54 P1s in a room the same size as the 14 P1s have at Robslee. I’m not exaggerating.
I wish Mr Russell would visit Giffnock Primary, and confirm whether he is happy that Scottish children are being taught in such conditions in 2011, it really is disgusting (I’ll just add the words East Renfrewshire Council so their web scanning picks this up).
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Excellent article. Well done to the Newsroom.
This backs why the Angus SNP councillors complained about taking a vote without being presented with the full and correct facts, therefore wishing more consultation. Even HMI were not given the correct property information. How can a Council be expected to make a correct decision making vote when presented with misleading information?
“The silent majority” have spoken in the Arbroath Herald today with 96% wishing more consultation. Some very good letters too on this subject. Surely this speaks volumes?
Michael Russell is an intelligent Education Secretary, who I hope will take these facts into consideration when making a decision, and that his decision will reflect what he considers best for children and their education. I am certain that there is no political motivation.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Re Kevin’s article agree with him that Timmergreens has not been maintained to the usual high standard that it was in the past, and this is entirely due to lack of maintenace because of the talk of a new school. Much is superficial and could be upgraded.
Also about the building of more houses and transporting pupils to the new super school, he could well have a point. Angus Council got their sums wrong on this one when building new schools and closing existing ones in recent years in Forfar. Numbers exceeded those expected. “The Courier” newspaper had an article on this a couple of years ago. Meanwhile a stone built school is still lying derelect with no buyers.
Perhaps Angus Concil have got their sums wrong again.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Was at the pantomime this week. One character said “I’m from Angus Cooncil(sic). We’re good at making decisions!”
With no prompting the audience yelled back,
“OH NO YOU DON’T”!!
I have not met Dr McKenzie, but from his wee anecdote last week, I take it he plays the “baddy” in panto. I now have a picture of him shouting, “I’m going to close all your schools!” Pity he was prevented from saying his line!
Loved “The 12 Days of Christmas” last week too. It was brilliant. Well done to “Very worried Mum” and “Crazy Bat”.
Brought some humour to a worrying situation.
For some unknown reason all my comments last week kept disappearing into oblivion. Thought at first it was the severe gales, but it continued until now.
In case it happens again – “Merry Christmas to you all at ForArgyll.” Thank you for your support in whatever the outcome.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Can;t think what happened to your comments. Huge apologies.
If you want to re-post them, we’ll look for your name and will keep an eye on them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sometimes recently my comments have vanished because I failed to notice that my name and email address were sometimes missing from the boxes.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Congratulations on an excellent article Sandy and to the Newsroom for their continued support. This latest article clearly highlights our reservations in simple laymen’s terms and I congratulate those involved for their work in painstakingly sieving through this web of deceit by certain members of Angus Council.
I also agree with Ewan that neither of these schools are the worst when you hear some of the stories from other parents with children at Arbroath schools.
The silent majority” have spoken in the Arbroath Herald 96% (624 votes), wishing more consultation. This I believe is a record number of votes registered on any Arbroath Poll a total of (648).
The one question I keep asking is what does Councillor Neild hope to gain from all of this, with only 24 of his so called silent majority bothering to support him in this weeks Poll.
The man must now realise he’s backs against the wall and his days as a councilor are likely to be numbered. He and a number of his colleagues have made numerous mistakes and grave errors of judgment and tried to cover it up. If it wasn’t for MAG and other key supporters none of this would have come to light.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Being a parent of 3 children who currently attend Muirfield Primary School, I have followed the “Super School” fiasco closely from the outset. Personally, disregarding the fact that the new school would provide no educational benefit & its proximity to a main arterial route through the town places the pupils at high risk two or more times per day whilst attending, I feel that it would be of far greater benefit to all children in the Arbroath area to bring all schools up to an acceptable standard prior to building one new school which benefits only a small percentage of the town.
After reading other comments listed, I believe there is one course of action that should be considered with a matter of urgency. Am I correct in thinking that the decision to grade schools across Scotland is the responsibility of the local council, and is it the council’s responsibility to recruit a suitable engineer to carry out this grading survey?
If this is the case how can we expect to obtain consistency across the board? Is it not time for the Scottish Government to implement an independent survey of all schools, undertaken be a small number of qualified individuals, working to a set number of guidelines to obtain clear picture of the state of all schools across the country?
Finally, as a professional individual, I feel it would be incorrect of me to point fingers at individuals involved & would like to add that, with the benefit of hindsight, some of those involved would probably handle this delicate matter in a different manner should they get a second chance?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Pingback: Argyll News: Muirfield School: Education Secretary concerned over Information Commission’s report | For Argyll