Education Director Cleland Sneddon’s cruise to close rural schools in Argyll was given to sailing too close to reefs in order to create flourishes for observers on the shore. Had he paid attention to steering safely through the well buoyed navigation channel, his resulting sinkings might have been avoided.
But by his own words in this submission, he sees accurate evidence as an obstructive nuisance and wishes to see it made irrelevant in the process of trying to close schools.
This article is focused on Mr Sneddon’s submission to the Commission on the Delivery of Rural Education. ( A & B draft response to Commission Dec 11 )
The submission was, on his recommendation, endorsed by Argyll and Bute Council’s Executive committee and sent direct to the commission on behalf of the council – without going first to the full council for discussion and approval.
Ironically, had it been sent to council, there is a chance that members outside the Executive might have noticed what the privileged did not – repeated errors of substantial fact and practice which were made highly public last year and which do not appear to have been understood.
The focus of the Sneddon submission
As Education Director, in 2011 Mr Sneddon lost two successive sets of substantial closure proposals to an abler and more hard working team of schools campaigners in Argyll. During this process he saw one partner party (the SNP) in the then ruling coalition walk out of power in protest against the flawed state of his proposals.
He has several consequent purposes in this submission:
- to try to neutralise at source all effective opposition to future closure proposals;
- to try to present his two successive failures as somehow resulting from unfair advantage to the campaigners – who are voluntary, unresourced and excluded from key stages of the closure proposal procedure as currently prescribed;
- to argue for changes to the procedure that would put evidence and veracity of evidence beyond scrutiny;
- to address perceived failures in the law as it stands.
On this last point, we would argue that the obvious problems lie far less with the nature and framing of the law than with the erratic and directionless manner of its implementation to date.
Its inconsistency – to which Mr Sneddon fairly points – shows no evidence of being guided by stable principle but to have staggered between the pressures of the moment from conflicting forces. This satisfies no one and discredits the law.
Summary account of the Sneddon Submission
We link to the detail of the major issues listed in this summary but fundamentally Mr Sneddon’s submission is the work of a sore loser, trying to sabotage the opposition’s barque for next time.
He seems to feel that parents and communities have no right to fight to save their schools, no right to test the validity of the evidence of the council case against it and certainly no right to win, as the Argyll Rural Schools Network campaigners, with the support of SRSN, did – twice in a row.
He says: ”The current Act and its associated guidance have produced a very adversarial process whereby opponents of a proposal believe to object to it implies that there is an argument to win by disproving the educational benefits statement of an authority. The result has been a massively disproportionate use of time and resources by both parties trying to “win” an argument by criticising the position of the other. It therefore engenders a bad feeling and the actual correct and proper consideration of education benefits and opponent’s views is overlooked in the adversarial process. ‘
This statement carries another issue that is echoed elsewhere in the submission – the nuisance of having to work to get it right. The Education Director, shown before and again here to busk his way through issues rather than do his homework properly, resents having to make the effort to do a professional job. He says: ‘The statutory consultation process was very time consuming. Officers and senior managers were required to collect and collate very specific information related to the educational benefits of facts and figures.’ Poor loves.
- He thinks that a rural school and an urban school should be treated as the same thing.
- He is unable to think positively about rural schools. Even when the commission asks for constructive ideas to make rural schools sustainable, he uses the response to focus on the difficulties and offers nothing of value.
- He abuses here the same evidence in the same way as he was publicly reprimanded in 2011 by the author of a research study (The Outer Hebrides Migration Study’) whose conclusions he had knowingly misapplied.
- He rubbishes the impact of losing its school on a community’s sustainability and wants to downgrade its current status in law.
- He suggests that teachers making a lifestyle choice to teach in rural schools are less capable teachers.
- He radically misunderstands the governing legislation – see below on the presumption against the closure of a rural school.
- He wants to sideline councillors from scrutinising his proposals.
- He wants to make ‘process’ (the box tickers’ charter) the prime criterion above content and evidence in the adjudication of contested closure decisions, neutralising the best work of school campaigners.
- He wants to pass the buck to external organisations on assessing educational benefit.
- He still can’t get his sums right on the GAE funding mechanism.
- He distorts the picture of the condition of the Argyll school estate.
- He feels that issues like travel times to school should be left to the council to judge as they are the experts. This comes from the man who fronted proposals that, when tested, would have required tiny children to do a total of over two and a half hours a day commuting to school; and allowed in their doctored calculations of 45 minute journeys, 30 seconds a time for a driver to stop, assist to board and secure tiny children before getting back in the minibus and driving off.
- He says: ”It is also important to clearly emphasise that a proposal may produce some dis-benefits to pupils (e.g. an extended travel journey) that cannot be fully mitigated but they should not automatically mean a proposal should be rejected. Rather the whole range of benefits and dis-benefits should be considered together so that the overall impact on pupils is considered. ‘ It is unsurprising that he makes no suggestion as to how a two and a half hour daily commute imposed on a tiny child might be mitigated in any way.
- He wants to avoid ‘simplistic debate’ – yet it was his closure proposals that relentlessly touted the mantra: ‘Bigger schools are better’.
- He has the cheek to bleat at the end of the submission: ”Finally, the Council would wish to highlight the impact of the current process on its communities, on schools and on staff tasked with undertaking this work. The campaign that was undertaken in Argyll and Bute was very difficult and in some cases distressing for those involved or affected by it. Any conclusion of the Commission should consider these comments and reflect the duty of care the Council has to its pupils, communities and staff. ‘
This last is said in denial that all the distress was caused directly by his own out-of-scale and persistently flawed closure proposals – on two successive occasions.
We could go on – as virtually all of what he says can quickly be shown to be unsound – and we could expand our earlier judgment above to say that this submission is the work of a sore loser consumed by self-pity.
It is, typically, off the cuff and unedited – with unnoticed internal contradictions; carelessness in various renderings of just what pupil numbers are the limit for GAE per capita funding for rural schools; and shows no trace of awareness of the grave responsibility of contemplating closing one rural school – never mind twenty six, in an area like Argyll and Bute.
On the evidence of this submission, Mr Sneddon has learned nothing from his two defeats.
The presumption against the closure of a rural school
This is the heart of the matter. It is the central issue that has not been given primacy either by local authorities or government – and perhaps was never more than tokenism, not taken seriously by either.
This ‘presumption against the closure of a rural school’ exists for good reason – to protect the mutually sustaining life support that demonstrably exists between a rural community and its school.
Failing to understand this, Mr Sneddon is of the view that: ‘The legislation surrounding the closure of schools should be uniform throughout Scotland: there should be no distinction between rural and urban.’
The extent to which Mr Sneddon has not engaged with the core stance of the law could not be clearer than in his statement: ”The Act as it stands at the moment is discriminatory against the closure of a school.’
A member of the Argyll Rural Schools Network has dealt with this best in a note saying: ”This was his best line. I had to change my pants after reading this. Yes Mr Sneddon: a presumption against closure does indeed mean that the Act is discriminatory against the closure of a school. That’s what the words “presumption against closure” mean. Where was this man educated?’
The photograph above was taken outside Argyll and Bute Council’s HQ at Kilmory in Lochgilphead, on a cold 5th January 2011 as school campaigners gathered outside. Inside, to a specially requisitioned meeting of Council, Sandy Longmuir of SRSN was making a presentation of his analysis of the flaws in Mr Sneddon’s first set of school closure proposals. This meeting ended with the retiral of the proposals.
The man shows that he has learned nothing from his experiences of the last two years. And his elected political masters show that they have not either. He should have been sacked when it was proved he had lied to Councillors and refused to give information to his elected Cpouncillor boss. Now he seems to be working towards getting a financial settlement to take early retirement to go elsewhere.
The only good thing that comes out of this latest nomnsense is that it would seem that Walsh, Morton and the rest of the “Independents” in control currently seem willing to fight in May on the basis of standing by this farrago. Great stuff – bring on the campaign – the voters will judge him and them.
Hot debate. What do you think?
27 
3
This man’s arrogance knows no bounds, really.
Distress? Does he mean to himself?
I personally would like to ask Councillor’s of the opposition, many of whom comment on here for their thoughts on his submission and do they support it? Yes or no please.
I’ll completely let rip later on today – first coffee going down at the mo.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
0
The last time I checked we still lived in a democracy, which means we have the right to voice our opinions and the ability to vote/control the choices our ‘leaders’ make that will affect our/our children’s future.
I am inclined to think that Sneddon, during the holiday season, studied North Korean politics…
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
0
Newsroom. Re the Costa Sneddonia, while the “Captain” is well known to us, and should like his Italian counterpart be languishing under house arrest, my over active imagination is wondering who you may have recognised as “The ballet dancer on the bridge”?
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
0
For hotbird405:
We share a sense of what a metaphor can do.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
If we are to keep this in education terms then the very least Sneddon requires is a punishment exercise for not paying attention in class. Expulsion would be preferable.
That it went to the Executive rather than full Council is disgraceful but not surprising. The undemocratic structure of the Executive required no further comment than that already made on FA and it is symptomatic of this Council, and its administration, that this submission was ‘subjected’ to the path of least resistance. Education, and its delivery, impacts on every corner of A&B and thus a submission to the Commission is a matter for all Councillors and should be heard at full Council.
Newsroom is correct that the submission is the work of a very sore loser who is still smarting that his grand plan was foiled by those ‘pesky kids.’ How a person so adverse to proper process and to a fundamental requirement to A, Get things right, B Prove it, and C See it stand up to scrutiny, has actually forged a career in the public sector speaks volumes about the calibre and attitude of those, who over the years, have appointed and promoted him. This is an attitude better placed in a fascist regime rather than a democratic body.
That he returns to the ‘dodgy dossier’ despite being publicly ridiculed for it when the actual studies authors castigated him for his use of them last time (I believe the phrase was ‘wholly misleading’) is bad enough but worse still is that the Council have agreed to the submission with these references still in it. Has decency and honesty been totally abandoned in the quest to succeed in this crusade to close schools? It would certainly appear so.
I also notice that he makes reference to dis-benefits to pupils. Well this is news because anyone who read the closure proposals will remember that they stated that there were no dis-benefits that the Council needed to mitigate. The wording that appeared in one proposal after another was ‘Any educational effects would be positive.’ Of course Sneddon tries to get round that by referencing travel journeys and will no doubt claim that has no impact on educational effects meaning the statement in the proposals could be justified. Any parent knows that a primary school child spending as much as 90 minutes a day on a bus is going to impact on them physically and therefore there is a clear impact on their education. However even without that it was abundantly clear that the proposals had a number of educational dis-benefits which the Council entirely ignored.
As for reference to duty of care. Well I think anyone who went through the closure farce and read that section of the submission must surely have laughed out loud. Newsroom hits the nail right on the head. The distress was caused by a Council with incompetence in its senior management and incompetence in its administration producing proposals which were, and were always destined to be, incompetent.
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
0
I concur absolutely with every comment above.
Personally,all I can think is…How dare he treat us parents with such contempt.
How dare he consider that he is above the law.
And how dare he believe that he has a job for life,without putting in the work.
The fantasists at this council will be shown the door in May,and not before time.
Let’s make sure that everyone is aware of these eejits and how much they despise the people who have voted for them in the past.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
2
I must say that I find it difficult to remain calm when I hear about Mr Sneddon’s lastest exploits on our behalf but, of course, we have to remember that Mr Sneddon is just doing the job he was hired to do. The fact that he continues to use the same discredited material to try to prove his case only reinforces my view that not only should he go but, the very same people that employed him should share the same fate come the May elections.
I should say that I don’t have a problem with politicians and their employees putting forward an argument, however, I would like to see some honesty and integrity from them when it’s proved that they are wrong.
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
1
Integrity has covered a lot of the same points I was going to make – including the phrase “pesky kids” LOL
The arrogance of this man astounds me, it really does. Thats 3 attempts now and giving a figure for GAE and the third time he has got it wrong – are there really no alarm bells going off in the ConDemAll Bunker/Dungeon? Are they really quite happy to back someone who obviously has now got a personal vendetta against parents and rural schools and is continuing to spout forth utter garbage to try and justify his opinions? I was told at one time (coincidentally by Billy Petrie) that Luss Primary was on a “shooglie peg”. Look at where you’re standing now Billy! Loudon and Sneddon have made Argyll & Bute Council the laughing stock of Scotland – and are continuing to do so. How many other council’s have read Sneddon’s submissions and found themselves creased up laughing at yet another “spot the muppet” contribution from the West? Bet that retirement can’t come quick enough Billy.
Sincerely, I hope they don’t think we’re all as dense as Sneddon over here. Hell will clearly need to freeze over before this arrogant lunatic ever admits to getting a thing wrong. He is still excusing HIS errors as not being his fault for getting it wrong, but as the parents and communities errors for pointing them out! Poor wee soul. Seriously, I have seen saner people in the looney bin. This guy is completely delusional and must exist in a wee world where there are no rural areas whatsoever. Really, what on earth were they thinking giving someone the job in what is almost a completely rural local authority area who has no clue about and clearly HATES anything and anyone connected with rural life? Oh yes, that’s right Sally “Control-Freak” Loudon – she wanted a lapdog to fit in her handbag. Enter Sneddon.
As time is going on, it is absolutely obvious Sneddon has nothing but pure contempt for rural communities, rural schools and rural people – there leaves only one option for this lying, manipulating, inaccurate waste of tax-payer’s money…
SNEDDON MUST GO!!!!!
Wonder how that guy behind the Western Isles study feels about his research continuing to be defiled? Can FA ask him for a statement?
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
1
Dear Sirs,
I am delighted to provide the reference you requested.
Mr S has displayed exceptional tenacity and perseverance in the face of adversity. These are admirable qualities in a leader charged with operationalising strategy and implementing change. A complex man, often misunderstood, as visionaries frequently are he has a particular, almost unique skill in being able to mobilise a diversity of opinion to a common purpose. With a perspective and understanding of the big picture, which has become his trademark, his attention to detail is no less noteworthy. His imaginative interpretation of law, procedure and protocol excites the public, inspires the media and perplexes convention. The challenges of his current post are clearly not his equal. I am not alone in predicting that he will, and indeed should, go far. Any future employer will be very lucky to have him work and perform effectively in any senior capacity.
Should he leave us to take up a post with you, it would be a noticeable and emotional time for many of us ; he has left a mark and legacy which will be remembered.
Yours etc
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
Brilliant! Do you do this for a living?
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
Superb Jake!
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
For Jake: We would gladly add to your heartwarming testimony for this unique visionary.
He is clearly regarded as of being of such value to local authorities that they have come to an agreement to share him between them – with Argyll and Bute the seventh to be given the privilege when the music stopped. The only disappointment to the preceding six local authorities is that his departures to the next needy council left no time for him to witness the fruits of his endeavours in their area.
We have no doubt that all those who were the focus of his work at the six earlier councils would have been glad for him to have been able to stay around and share their joy at the benefit his efforts brought to them.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Mr Sneddon does seem to suffer from a condition that is the intellectual version of Tourette’s syndrome. Most of us have strange thoughts at times coming from our minds but our self-censorship prevents us from saying them out loud. Thus the husband’s thought that his wife’s bum looks huge in that dress is only rarely uttered.
Mr Sneddon’s ability to self censor seems dramatically impaired since he not only utters thoughts that he shouldn’t, he writes them down for everyone to see.
As I wrote on one of the other threads, Mr Sneddon’s real problem is that he thinks he is right and the rest of us are wrong. We can quote facts and statistics, have the authors of reports write clear statements criticising his abuse of their work and none of it will matter. He is right, we are wrong and he will prove that by closing all of our rural schools down as soon as he gets the nonsense of this moratorium out of the way.
Unless we stop him.
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
3
Is it only me that is noticing that since Simon’s departure we are seeing one or two red thumbs down rather than 9 or 10. Funny that.
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
12
Fear not Integrity
Simon comes in many shapes and forms, and will no doubt return to amuse us all with his humorous views. I’m also fairly positive that newsie misses him.
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
7
Why have we not had any feedback from the opposition councillors on this issue surely they must respond to this idiot.Get stuck in and let everyone in Argyll know this guy is damaged goods.
power to the people.
Like or Dislike:
10 
2
Neil: I understand that wheels are in motion.
Like or Dislike:
10 
1
Hi Neil,
Councillors need to chose their words wisely when it comes to making reference to Council Officers as they would be in breach of the Code of Conduct if they are openly critical.
However Dougie is right in what he says so lets wait and see on this one.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
The Commission will be holding a public meeting in every region with a high percentage of rural schools (Argyll & Bute date and venue yet to be confirmed). Opposition councillors, and anyone else with an interest, will also be able to make their views known in that context. It will be available to administration councillors and officials to do the same.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
Cheers for the update folks.
Will try my best to be there if not working,should be very interesting.
With the additional £8million budget cut now being made public what will they try to destroy next.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
Meanwhile, only the other day, and behind closed doors (public and press not admitted), Duncan McIntyre, Neil MacKay and Elaine Robertson, all Independents and all signatories of the School Closure motions, gaily voted through hundreds of thousands of pounds of our money to finance a marina and landing facilities for cruise liner visitors. Clearly they think such things are more important than primary schools. It’s called the CHORD Project, and it stinks. So much for democracy. The sooner these people and their administrative acolytes are OUT, the better. Roll on the May elections! Grrr Grr
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Ring fenced money i would think. The principles of this are good but need to be well thought out before one more penny goes out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pingback: Argyll News: United opposition dissociates itself from Executive response to Commission on Rural Education | For Argyll
Pingback: Argyll News: ARSN submission to Rural Education Commission | For Argyll