Congratulations to Ewan. Was with him at the …

Comment posted Successful Schools campaigner, Ewan Smith, elected in Angus by Sandy Longmuir.

Congratulations to Ewan. Was with him at the count, he and his wife went through every emotion possible but brilliant to see them so happy at the end of it all.
Peter Nield, the main proponent of the superschool, was what can only be described as humiliated. Less than 200 first preference votes for a sitting education convener must be something of a record. He did not appear at the count – one of very few candidates who did not make it.

Recent comments by Sandy Longmuir

• Scottish Rural Schools Network’s response to Rural Education Commission report
  Touch a raw nerve did I Simon?

  Is it only you that cannot see the contradiction in saying you are not an advocate in closing rural schools when you have spent the last couple of years singling out schools like Luss for just that very action?

  I agree that your course of action would be sensible and is the same as I would take but that was not what you were advocating I should do. You were pushing me for a number or a list of school names (as you have done with others in the past) without that process having taken place.
  How could I have carried out community impact assessments, travel times and distances, assessments of economic activity, future rolls, birth rates etc on those 35 schools without consulting with each individual community in the way this report recommends? But you were pushing me as you have pushed others to create some sort of arbitrary list while now admitting that is not the way to do it.
  I do not need to misrepresent you – you do an excellent job of that yourself. Are you sure you are not Cleland Sneddon?

• Scottish Rural Schools Network’s response to Rural Education Commission report
  Simon, I will take your points in turn.
  Misrepresentation? Exactly where did I say or suggest that all schools in Argyll and Bute are small and remote? The Commission does not give a size category for small in relation to when capacity should not be considered in a closure consultation. That is why I chose the sub 10 category as nobody could possibly claim that they were not small. As for remote, the Commission is clear in the definition of this and it is the current classification after the correction of a very small number of anomalies. Of the schools you mention only Luss is not classed as remote.
  You will need to ask a Commission member what the cut off point is for when capacity can be considered but we have long argued that any closure based spare physical capacity in the shape of one spare room or large rooms in schools like Luss is a complete nonsense. I would like to think that the text in the Commission report agrees with that position. If you disagree with this perhaps you could make one of your influential “calls” for change when the report is considered by the Scottish Government.
  Considering we also have been “calling” for consistency in reporting of capacity and for capacity not to be considered when looking at our small school estate then of course we welcome the recommendations of the report in this regard. Of course our “calling” for change has involved holding meetings with politicians, giving evidence to the Commission and working in many LA areas. It did not involve sitting in our pants hiding behind a computer screen using false personae, typing away on the comments columns of local websites since 2011 but if you want to claim the credit for “years” of work on the issue then feel free.
  Re sand in the eyes. It was pure and simple fact that Argyll used a different measure of capacity and then tried to compare themselves to other authorities such as Orkney who were operating with totally different measures. This was simply wrong and we pointed it out. You appear to be saying that it will now be simpler for LAs to make cases for closure because they will be prescribed to tell the truth. There was absolutely nothing in the previous guidance which said they had to lie. My guess is that if they could have made good cases without lying about capacity, CfE, GAE etc, they would have done.
  I cannot give you a list of possible options for closure because I simply do not presume to have the knowledge required to prepare such a list. With some effort using the school census and google maps I could make an estimate of schools within reasonable travelling distance of another school but, as we have seen time and again, that is only a fraction of the story. I would never presume to be able to make a judgement on the future of a school and a community from a hundred miles away based on a few scant facts gleaned off a database. That kind of Solomon style judgement is best left to the anonymous experts hiding away in their pants.
  I would have hoped that the Commission report could have made it clear that this is not the approach that should be taken.
  Take Dalwhinnie – I have been in that school in relation to the Act. It had a tiny roll but the quality of work and the level the children were at was exceptional. I feel incredibly sad that what was taking place there has stopped and my first reaction was that it should not have closed. When the full information became known I changed my mind and I fully support what the Council and the community have done. You have to know all the facts – not just simply pick a set of schools off some list.
  For the record I do not think you fit the persona described above. I believe the “calling for years” is very possibly a genuine claim and that you do have a long history in genuine opposition to rural schools and in places where your voice has been heard. Just not sure why you have to adopt the cowardly position of hiding and sniping. Small man syndrome?
• Scottish Rural Schools Network’s response to Rural Education Commission report
  Simon, you show time and again that you have a definite intelligence and have a sharp way with language. I am unsure why the subject of rural schools causes a blind spot when it comes to your ability to analyse text and numbers. (did you ever send some money to a children’s charity over your insistence that A&BC were right about GAE?).
  You are not alone with your blind spot – it is shared by several senior officers in Cosla and quite a few senior officials in Local Authorities. That blind spot clouds their judgement and leads them to present very flawed arguments for closing rural schools. The “problem” has lain with them and those who swore blind their numbers and arguments were right and not with the rural schools themselves. That is why the Commission came into being. If you read the Parliamentary transcript the reason given in Parliament for the Commission was that the legislation was flawed in the Section regarding the ability to have inaccurate information corrected. A&BC’s attitude to Section 5 of the Act was the principal driver for this – not the fact the schools were under occupied or expensive.

  I repeat again “The Commission concluded that
  capacity measurements had little place in the
  assessment of the viability of small remote
  schools”

  For these schools – given the report recommendations are accepted- capacity is no longer an argument that can be used in order to close a small remote rural school. The clear implications for the reassessment of the methodology for measuring capacity is to have relevance for arguments elsewhere in the school estate. It entirely removes the argument repeatedly put forward by people like yourself when looking at our smallest schools.
  Given that there is a presumption against closure still in place, that the matters to have regard will have to be addressed well in advance of closure consultations (and not simultaneous lip service as A&BC attempted), it has been confirmed that CfE can be delivered at the highest level in these schools and that capacity is removed from the argument I am completely at a loss as to how tightening up the guidance will favour Councils. Wishful thinking in the extreme perhaps?

  As for changing tactics – I don’t think so. Staying with the facts and getting the numbers right has done us well in the past, I see no reason to stray from searching for the truth. The truth has proved a reliable weapon against people who rely on duplicity and subterfuge to get their own way.

  When I said there were a few dozen pupils in schools that could be an option for closure I did not mean the option was for me but for more judgemental and prejudiced individuals who presume that they have the right to interfere in communities’ existence without being invited. The one thing that you are correct about is that each case should be viewed on its merits but only after the matters to regard have been exhaustively examined and honest discussion with the community has taken place.
  Other Councils like Perth & Kinross manage this effectively having closed some of their smallest schools in the last couple of years with the minimum of fuss. Scottish Borders have closed Ettrick and Roberton in recent years without the world falling in on them and Highland have mothballed Dalwhinnie in the most generous of manners.

  Something tells me that the people involved at the sharp end of A&BC will never have the ability to manage things in the way those Councils have done. Like you they have a blind spot when it comes to guidance, numbers or even legislation on this issue. Fancy another bet?

  One final thing… “this is something I have been calling for for years”? When we arrived in Argyll & Bute not even the senior officers knew about the disparity in modelling capacity between authorities. In 2011 they were still arguing they were in the “mainstream” and that there was no guidance on the subject. We found no great depth of knowledge on the subject anywhere in Argyll – even from those whose job it was to know. Exactly where were you making these calls and who to? You have repeatedly said you are not a Councillor or official but now you are claiming an in depth knowledge and history of “years” in involvement with the issue?

• Scottish Rural Schools Network’s response to Rural Education Commission report
  Perhaps we should put Simon’s “problem” into context.
  According to the 2011 school census there are 198 children in 35 schools in the sub 10 pupil categories in the whole of Scotland. There are 370,000 primary school children in Scotland.
  Of those 35 schools a significant number are the only school on an island such as Rum or Fair Isle or Fetlar or Skerries or Papa Westray…… Or they are in extremely remote mainland locations with no road access like Inverie The alternative to having them is depopulation of the islands or hostelling children from 4 years old. The individual 24 hour care and transport bill for this can easily surpass the cost of the teacher on the island.
  Then you have schools like Altnaharra which was mothballed by Highland Council (quite correctly) but reopened because of economic activity in the area which the Council wanted to encourage (again to be applauded).
  So you have 35 schools, a significant proportion of which are socially and economically strategic, and most sensible people who are not inherently prejudiced would not want to close.
  By definition all of these schools are well under 50% capacity because they have less than 10 kids to a teacher who is legally allowed to teach 25. Yes they are expensive on a per pupil basis.
  This leaves us with a few dozen kids in the whole of Scotland where closure is an option in this size category. These schools account for somewhere under 0.01% of the education budget given to local authorities in Scotland. By no means all of the money currently in that budget will be saved by closing them. As problems go the overcapacity in these schools is not going to solve our national debt crisis, no matter how much some people may try to convince you they are the albatross around Scotland’s neck..
• Scottish Rural Schools Network’s response to Rural Education Commission report
  Not sure what report Simon has been reading….
  “112. The Commission concluded that
  capacity measurements had little place in the
  assessment of the viability of small remote
  schools. For many small schools with limited
  facilities, one of their few advantages is a
  relatively large classroom space which is
  used to excellent effect to support the small
  group and individual learning necessary for
  multi-stage composite classes. Under-used
  capacity compared to urban norms is almost
  inevitable in serving a sparse population.
  Where ‘real’ spare capacity exists, in the form
  of surplus classrooms or other space, it would
  be better to consider it as an opportunity
  to base additional services at the school,
  such as health, childcare, adult learning or
  employment services. This would allow local
  authorities to work with partners to
  co-fund the building or facility, making it
  more economical to maintain.”

powered by SEO Super Comments